Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — European

Airbus

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology what is his latest estimate of the cost of research and development of the European airbus; and what percentage increase this represents over the last previously published figures.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects agreement to be reached to go ahead with the development of the European airbus; and what are the latest estimates for development costs for the airframe and engine separately.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the inter-governmental discussions regarding the building of a prototype A300 airbus.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about the European airbus.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): Full technical and financial reports were submitted by industry in May and are being evaluated by international teams of officials. Engine launching costs are now estimated by Rolls Royce at something over £70 million for a 54,000 lb. thrust engine as against the earlier figure of £62 million for a 47,500 lb. thrust engine. Airframe launching costs are estimated by Sud Aviation as at least £215 million against the earlier figure of £130 million. These new figures take into account the effects of devaluation. In all, this represents an increase of nearly 50 per cent., though the figures are of course subject to further negotiation and are not yet officially endorsed. Ministers plan to meet next month, as scheduled, to make a decision on the future of the project.

Mr. Onslow: In view of that very disturbing information and of other developments with reference to the airbus, does the Minister still stick to his categoric assurance that it will be built?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are very hopeful that it will be built, but we have always made clear that this is not a political project; it is a commercial one. We want to build an aircraft which will be commercially viable and which will be attractive to the airlines to buy it. If we can meet those terms and conditions along the


lines of the strict criteria we laid down last July, we shall do it.

Mr. Marten: As the costs have escalated, I think the right hon. Gentleman said from 50 per cent. to 70 per cent., what chances are there of this being a commercial project? If it is not a commercial project, what will be left of the civil aircraft industry in this country?

Mr. Stonehouse: The civil aircraft industry does not rely on the airbus alone by any means. I ask the House to remember that the project has been changed considerably in character during the last year. The specifications are not by any means identical with those we had in mind a year ago because, of course, the aircraft now more nearly meets what the airlines have in mind. In this sense it will be more commercially attractive than the original plans were.

Mr. Fortescue: Has the Minister had any recent indications from the French Government as to a change in their attitude towards this project after the recent events in France?

Mr. Stonebouse: As I said, the Ministers expect to meet next month. In that discussion we shall understand what the current French decision is.

Mr. Raokin: May we take it that my right hon. Friend in making that statement was making a categorical denial of the statements which appear in this morning's Press that the Government do not mean to proceed with the airbus 300?

Mr. Stonehouse: We have made no such decision. We shall await the complete evaluation of the reports to which I have referred, and of course we shall be discussing it with our partners, Germany and France, at the discussions to be held next month.

Mr. Corfield: Can the right hon. Gentleman either confirm or deny that he has made approaches to the Boeing Aircraft Corporation with a view to its participation in this project in return to its abandoning a competitive aircraft? If he has made those approaches, can he give an indication of Boeing's reactions and also the reactions of the French Government to that suggestion?

Mr. Stonehouse: There is another Question on the Order Paper about my visit to the United States. I prefer to wait for that.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend seen Press reports on the attitude of Lufthansa towards this project? What observations has he to make on this?

Mr. Stonehouse: I fully understand the position and that Lufthansa, as with any other airline, will wish to have the full specification and particulars of any aircraft before being committed to it. The Lufthansa airline decision must be decided finally by Ministers concerned in Germany, and we have had an assurance from German Ministers that they wish the airbus project to continue.

TSR2 Airframe (Tests)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology if he will specify the nature of the ground tests to be carried out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment on the TSR2 airframe at Shoeburyness.

Mr. Stonehouse: Firings of various types will be made at the airframe from varying distances in order to assess the vulnerability of advanced aircraft of modern construction.

Mr. Onslow: Why cannot these tests be simulated by some other means? What is particular about the TSR2 which lends itself to this? Will the Minister take note that a Conservative Administration would not allow this aircraft to be destroyed in this way?

Mr. Stonehouse: Any other form of test would cost more money. We are saving money by using remains of TSR2, which would go for scrap, and there are two models of TSR2, which are being retained.

BAC111–600

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology what financial support the Government is planning to give towards the development of the BAC111–600.

Mr. Stonehouse: No request for launching aid has been received from the company.

Mr. Corfield: Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the market


that this aircraft is likely to command? If so, will he give us an indication as to whether the Government will support it if the market is adequate?

Mr. Stonehonse: The BAC111 so far has sold very well; over 150 have been sold. The market appreciation, which is not yet complete, indicates that there would be fairly good sales for the 600 series. We will be taking all this into account, particularly the export prospects, if any application is made to us.

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the effect on the fixed price of the Harrier aircraft on the basis that the order is doubled.

Mr. Stonehouse: No price has yet been agreed for the Harrier, but theoretical calculations suggest that the average unit cost of 120 Harriers would be about one-eighth less than the average unit cost of 60.

Mr. Goodhew: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on recognising on this occasion that it is a question for him and not one for his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence? Has he consulted the Secretary of State for Defence on the possibility of increasing the order, since, if more will be needed for the Royal Air Force, it would be more successful to agree this now so that lower unit costs could be offered to those who wish to buy that aircraft?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is considering whether the order should be increased, but he is not yet in a position, before all the studies are complete, to make any announcement.

Concorde Aircraft

Mr. Frank Taylor: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the lateral noise of the Concorde on take-off compared with existing types of jet aircraft.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): We cannot expect final confirmation of the complex noise level assessments involved until Concorde has flown. Our objective is

to see that Concorde should be within the noise limits of existing aircraft, and we believe this to be achievable.

Mr. Taylor: Is it not most important for the Government to indicate what they consider to be a tolerable amount of noise so that designers can endeavour to work within this tolerance? If the Government have not yet made up their minds on what the maximum will be, will they do so quickly and let the industry know?

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman studies my Answer, he will see that I am not very far away from what he wants. The noise certification scheme, which has been generally agreed, cannot be applied to aircraft already under development. An improved engine silencer programme is being worked on and we are hoping that the parameters of lateral engine noise on take-off will be within the limits of existing aircraft.

Mr. Robert Howarth: When is the Concorde expected to start its flight trials?

Mr. Benn: I think there is another Question on that subject.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement of the effect which recent strikes in France have had on the estimated date of Concorde's initial flight.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Technology on what dates he now expects the first Concorde aircraft under construction in France and at Filton to make their first flights.

Mr. Benn: Just before the recent strikes in France, the manufacturers' forecasts were that both aircraft would fly some time between the second week in September and the third week in November. The effects of the strikes on these forecasts are currently being assessed: they seem bound to set the French-assembled prototype back by some weeks, but I cannot be more specific at the moment.

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend at least assure us that the initial flight of the British Concorde will not be determined by the length of industrial strikes in France?

Mr. Benn: I can assure my hon. Friend that the first flight of the British


or French Concorde will be neither advanced nor set back by any decision of mine. It is a technical decision, involving a number of complicated issues, including the instrumentation programme. It is bound to have some effect, since there is no French or British Concorde —both are identical aircraft, assembled in different countries.

Mr. Fortescue: Can the Minister tell the House whether it is a fact that the first flight of the British-assembled Concorde will be set back as a result of difficulty in obtaining parts which are manufactured in France and which are being delayed because of the strike?

Mr. Benn: I cannot be specific, but I think that the House will appreciate that since components for both these first aircraft come from both countries, any industrial dispute, either in France or the United Kingdom, would be bound to have some effect upon flight programmes. I very much hope that this delay will not be serious.

Mr. Ellis: Has not this co-operation been very good throughout and would it not be deplorable if this co-operation were to be impaired by any nationalistic claims from one side or the other? Would my right hon. Friend reiterate the fact that the decision will be taken on a technological basis, and, as this is a co-operative venture, it does not matter which aircraft flies first, but that it is the project which counts, and it is a joint project?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing that view which reflects the view of those actually doing the work in Bristol and Toulouse, and if it is any comfort to the House, whichever plane flies will be 50 per cent. British on its first flight.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, but while appreciating the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made, may I put it to him that what we are trying to get from him is that there is no question of either being held up while waiting for the other? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Benn: There will be no decision by me which would hold up at all the 002 being built in Bristol, but as both aircraft, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, are entirely interdependent, I

cannot guarantee that some delay at Toulouse might not affect the flight programme of the prototype 002 from Bristol.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the increased cost of the Concorde project following the recent strikes in France.

Mr. Benn: It is not practicable to isolate the direct effect of the French strikes on the total cost of the Concorde project, but it is likely to be small in the context of the programme as a whole.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister in a position to refute the suggestion that the French strikes will increase the cost of Concorde by at least £250,000 per aircraft?

Mr. Benn: We have not calculated this ourselves, and indeed I think it would be very difficult to calculate it till there is a final settlement of the dispute involving workers in Toulouse, but when we talk of escalation of aircraft projects, as the hon. Gentleman knows, time is money, and if anything sets back a project then it tends to increase the cost. However, I have not studied the figures and I cannot therefore confirm or deny the figure he has mentioned.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Can my right hon. Friend say whether work has been resumed in France on the Concorde?

Mr. Benn: I am afraid I do not know what the position is on this, but I understand there is still some delay.

Advance Combat Aircraft

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Technology what assistance he is giving to the development of an all-British future combat aircraft.

Mr. Stonehouse: We hope to be able to develop an advanced combat aircraft in collaboration with other European countries and with Canada and discussions with these countries are under way. The studies which British firms have been carrying out are continuing.

Mr. Kitson: Would it not be better to build a British plane and sell it rather than continue these discussions?

Mr. Stonehouse: What we want to ensure is that, when we build a plane, it has a very good export potential. It is more likely that it will have this export potential if the plane is built in collaboration in the first place. We are going ahead with discussions in the hope that we can agree on the building of an aircraft which will meet the requirements of many of the air defence staffs.

Mr. Corfield: We recognise the advantages of that proposal, but can the Minister assure us that, if it is not possible to reach an agreed specification, he will not discard the idea of an all-British combat aircraft aimed at the same market?

Mr. Stonehouse: I think that it is premature to look at any fall-back position. We are hoping that our present plans for a collaborative aircraft will be a great success technically and commercially.

Mini-Airbus

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what assistance he is giving to the development of an all-British 200 seat mini-airbus with RB211 engines.

Mr. Stonehouse: No manufacturer is currently seeking any such assistance.

Mr. Fortescue: As the research and development costs of the RB211 engines will now be covered in full on another project, and in view of the doubt which must be the case on the building of the A300 airbus, in the light of the Minister's Answer earlier, is it not time for the Minister to reconsider his views on our never being able to build another airliner on our own, more particularly as the kind of airliner described in the Question was B.E.A's second choice ahead of the Trident 3Bs which the Corporation will in fact get?

Mr. Stonehouse: The BAC211 project was rejected last year because we were, not by any means certain that the market demand for it would be large enough to justify the research and development expenditure. Those strict criteria must continue to be applied to any project on which we embark, whether it is collaborative or wholly United

Kingdom. We will certainly consider any proposal made to us, but we must be convinced that we shall sell sufficient numbers of these aircraft to justify the huge development costs involved.

Hypersonic Flight

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about progress with hypersonic flight.

Mr. Benn: Expenditure by my Department on hypersonics research is being progressively reduced and is expected to fall to about £200,000 in 1969–70. This is all that can be justified at the present time.

Mr. Marten: Why, apart from the views given by the Plowden Committee is this money being reduced, considering that this country leads the world in supersonic flight, and hypersonic flight, is merely the next stage after supersonic flight? Will not the Minister reconsider the matter?

Mr. Benn: I have considered it very carefully, and I am sure that it is the right decision. Half our problems in the past have stemmed from our decision to remain in the most advanced fields and hope later to be able to sell equipment, instead of gearing our own effort to what the market really wants. I remind the hon. Gentleman that £200,000 a year on hypersonics research is still a substantial sum of money. I am sure that the right thing to do is to make room in our programme for the sort of research which will produce exports for this country in the relatively near future.

Mr. David Price: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this decision in the context of what it would be right and proper for Britain to do in space in the next 10 years? There is a no-man's-land between what we call aviation and what we call space. Is there not a rôle here for Britain which is nothing like as expensive or as ambitious as the traditional space programme about which we usually talk?

Mr. Benn: The hypersonic aircraft comes in what is now called the aerospace field. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it makes sense to shape our research and development to a large extent on the basis of investment put into


industry for developments for which there is likely to be a market. On that basis, I believe our decision to be right.

British European Airways (Trident 3B)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimate of the cost to public funds of building the Trident 3B for British European Airways; and what is the current estimated in-service date.

Mr. Stonehouse: About £15 million for launching costs; the aircraft could be in service in 1971.

Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents—and, I presume, those of other hon. Members who have large Hawker Siddeley factories in their constituencies—are concerned at the delay in concluding the negotiations for the purchase of the Trident 3B? Will he use his influence to expedite matters?

Mr. Stonehouse: I understand that negotiations are going on between B.E.A. and the firm for the placing of an order for the Trident 3B, and I hope that they will be concluded soon. I do not propose to interfere in those negotiations.

Mr. Corfield: Can the hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made in the negotiations with B.E.A. about the compensation agreement, as this is plainly having a deleterious effect on our prospect of selling the aircraft abroad?

Mr. Stonehouse: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to address his question to him.

Minister of State (United States Visit)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Minister of State to the United States of America to meet aviation interests.

Mr. Stonehouse: I met the management of the Boeing Company on 9th May and of the Lockheed company on 10th May. My purpose was to maintain the contacts I have with these companies, which I value very highly.

Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend prepared to comment on reports that he discussed with Boeing the possibility of collaboration on the airbus?

Mr. Stonehouse: I discussed with various American firms the prospects of collaboration, and the American firms appreciate that we do not rule out collaboration with them on any proposal provided that we maintain in Europe a sufficient share of the design work involved. Since my visit to America, I have reported to my French and German colleagues the results of my discussions there.

Mr. Corfield: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm reports that he definitely made offers to Boeing in regard to both the airbus and the Concorde, and, if he made those offers, will he say what was the reaction of Boeing and also what was the reaction of the French Government, who also are partners in these projects?

Mr. Stonehouse: Our discussions with Boeing covered a wide field, but there were no specific proposals made from either the Boeing side or my side. We are simply looking at the broad possibilities of collaboration on aircraft for 1975 onwards which would meet the requirements of both United States and European airlines.

F111 Aircraft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the cancellation costs of the 50 F111s ordered from the United States of America.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now publish details of the cancellation costs of the 50 Fills agreed with the United States Government.

Mr. Stonehouse: Negotiations are continuing, and it may be some months before I am in a position to make an announcement.

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on reports that the cancellation costs are likely to be £62 million and that we shall also lose the right to offset bids of £125 million? This is an important matter. I hope that he will be able to make a statement soon.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am in a position to say now that there is no substance in the Press reports, and some of the estimates which have appeared are quite excessive.

Mr. Goodhart: Will the hon. Gentleman check on how these reports appeared in the Press? There were most authoritative reports carried in all the leading newspapers that the bill will be £60 million. Will he make sure what has happened?

Mr. Stonehouse: What we want to ensure is that we arrange the cancellation charges so as to put the least possible burden on the British Exchequer here. It would be possible for us to agree now on certain proposals which have been made to us, but the negotiations are continuing in order that we may reduce the amount of charges which we have to pay. I do not want to add to my original reply that the reported figures are excessive.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend take it that the cancellation is warmly welcomed on this side of the House? What would have been the cost of the order if it had not been cancelled? Second, as we are ending our east of Suez rôle, may we have an assurance that there will be no substitute for this aircraft which we no longer need?

Mr. Stonehouse: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the cancellation. I am not in a position to give him an exact figure of cost, but I can assure him and the House that the saving is considerable.

Sir A. V. Harvey: A vast sum of money has been wasted. How do the Government propose to pay this money, in view of the state of our economy? Has the hon. Gentleman tried to negotiate some form of arrangement for services to the United States in lieu of actual cash?

Mr. Stonehouse: This is part of the negotiations which we are now conducting with the Department of Defence. The question of spreading the payments or having them earmarked against something else will be one of the matters considered.

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology if he will confirm that the agreement with the United States Government for the purchase of the F111 contained the standard clause requiring the contractor, in the event of cancellation, to take all reasonable steps to

minimise the loss; and to what extent United States requirements for additional aircraft for their own forces to replace casualties and reinforce operations in Vietnam are being taken into account in negotiating cancellation charges.

Mr. Stonehouse: I can confirm that the F111 contract concluded on our behalf between the United States Government and the firm concerned includes such a provision. The United States authorities are at present making a detailed assessment of the extent to which they can make use of items manufactured for the United Kingdom in their own F111 programme.

Mr. Corfield: Can the hon. Gentleman go further and assure us that the losses which have already been sustained by this aircraft will be taken into account, as, presumably, they will have to be replaced, and is he satisfied that the contractors are doing everything possible to minimise the loss?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are satisfied that the Department of Defence is taking into account the use of the two aircraft which have been completed and also the materials which were being built up for the F111K programme. We very much hope that this will help to reduce the amount of the charge which we shall have to pay.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It will cost this country many millions of pounds. Will these many millions of pounds be borrowed from the foreign bankers so that we may pay? Is this not one of the root causes of our economic troubles?

Mr. Stonehouse: I was asked a detailed question about cancellation charges. I think that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not use the advantage of Question Time to enter into a discussion on the broad philosophy.

Mr. McMaster: Has the Minister attempted to negotiate an offset for the cancellation charges, and if so with what success?

Mr. Stonehouse: These are all matters currently being considered in the negotiations.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, in view of the continuing Senate hearings, that the United States intends


to go ahead with the manufacture of the F111?

Mr. Stonehouse: This is a matter for the United States Department of Defense, but I have had no indication that that Department is not anxious to go ahead with the F111 programme.

Short Brothers and Harland

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has for financing Short Brothers and Harland now it has been successful in obtaining the RB211 podding contract.

Mr. Stonehouse: Proposals for financing the future programme of Short Brothers and Harland Limited, including the podding contract referred to, have been put forward by the company's board. I am now considering them, and in view of the substantial sums of public money involved, I have asked Messrs. Binder, Hamlyn and Company, a firm of chartered accountants, to assist the Department in this matter.

Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister aware of the embarrassment caused to Short Brothers and Harland as a result of the inquiry by yet another firm of accountants, the second in 12 months to investigate the firm's affairs? Is he aware of the difficulties caused by the delay in making proper financial arrangements for this company? If there is to be a further delay will he ensure that there is adequate bridging finance available, because the jobs of many thousands of skilled men in Belfast are dependent upon adequate financial arrangements being made?

Mr. Stonehouse: On the first aspect, the inquiry that was initiated and conducted three years ago was with regard to the potential for diversification at Shorts. This is an inquiry about the financial structure. With regard to the second point, we understand from the company that it will need interim finance while these investigations and inquiries are being conducted. We have to consider how best this need for funds can be met.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm has for two years running won the Queen's Award to Industry, and is doing excellent work? Does he appreciate that time is

of the essence in this matter, and will he expedite these financial arrangements?

Mr. Stonehouse: I pay tribute to the tremendous successes that this firm has achieved. There is no doubt that it is technically excellent in many of the things that it does, and I give an assurance that this series of inquiries will be conducted as quickly as possible.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Norwegian Shipbuilding Contract (Penalty Clause)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware of the waiving by a Norwegian shipping line of a fine of £1,225,000 for which a British shipyard was liable under a penalty clause as a result of a 245-day delay in delivery; and what action he will take to inquire into the reason for this delay and to ensure that similar breaches of contract by British firms do not happen in the future.

Mr. Benn: I am aware of the reasons for the delay in delivery by a British shipyard and that agreement was reached on payments to Norwegian owners as a result of normal commercial negotiations. The reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry now proceeding should improve its competitive position in all respects.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The Minister says that he is aware of the reasons, but he does not tell the House any of the reasons. The whole nation must try to avoid at all costs this reputation for unpunctuality. Can the Minister give some further explanation of it?

Mr. Benn: This was a particular case which the hon. Gentleman knows about. There was an over optimism about the speed with which modernisation would be carried through in the yard in question. It was a commercial negotiation between the company and the foreign owners. In fact the contract was fulfilled, though a penalty payment had to


be made. The delivery position and delivery performance in the industry are now much improved.

Ships (Nuclear Propulsion)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on progress towards development of an economic nuclear reactor for merchant vessels.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): No requirement has yet been found for a ship calling for the large power output necessary to make nuclear marine propulsion competitive.
The Government are keeping this under review in collaboration with the shipbuilding and shipping interests.

Mr. Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that further progress can be made without trials and a prototype ship afloat? Does he realise that we, a premier maritime nation, are rapidly falling behind in this important development?

Mr. Fowler: The crucial question here is whether such a project would be commercially viable. It would be madness to indulge in quite heavy expenditure, particularly if such expenditure were borne by the Exchequer, without any commercial prospect for the sale of such a vessel.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, since the Padmore Committee reported some years ago, thinking on this matter has changed considerably as a result of the concept of the container ship with a nuclear-powered hull for a quick turn-round? Will he give a little more encouragement to those who have really progressive ideas in this field?

Mr. Fowler: We are encouraging the shipbuilding and shipping interests to discuss this matter in the hope that they may be able to produce a commercially viable project. In recent years, the governmental position in the matter has taken a sharp turn for the better in that both the atomic energy interests and shipbuilding interests are now concentrated in the same Department, the Ministry of Technology.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Radioactive Fall-out

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Technology what is the level of radioactive fall-out at present; how this compares with previous years; and how much is attributable to the Chinese tests carried out in the summer.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): The present levels of long-lived radioactive fall-out are similar to those of 1967. About half of the current long-lived radioactivity may be attributed to the Chinese explosion of 17th June, 1967.

European and Atlantic Technological Centres

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister of Technology (1) what location he has decided for the proposed European Technological Centre;
(2) what will be the number of staff required for the proposed European Technological Centre.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Technology what plans his Department has to further the establishment of a European Institute of Technology and an international Atlantic research centre; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: Discussions with European Governments and industrial organisations about the European Technological Centre are continuing. The other proposal which is being developed under the auspices of the North Atlantic Assembly is for an academic research and teaching institute for science and technology, and it is for industry and the universities to decide what support they would give to this proposal.

Mr. Howell: Is there not a striking contrast between the speed with which the Government seem prepared to withdraw from some European technological efforts, such as the C.E.R.N. particle accelerator, and the slowness with which they get on with this kind of technological initiative in this field? Is there not a widespread feeling amongst our Continental friends that we must be more specific and define more clearly


what the functions and aims of this kind of thing are?

Mr. Benn: I doubt whether there is much doubt in the minds of our European colleagues about this, because I have taken the opportunity of discussing this with a number of European Ministers—most recently in Denmark a few days ago. The object of the European centre was that it should be to a very large extent industrially based and motivated. Here we shall want to carry European industry with us. That is why the discussions are going on in this way. This is not a political initiative but a very serious industrial initiative.

Mr. Roberts: Will not my right hon. Friend accept, however, that the speedy development of both these technological centres is vital to our technological advance? Will he not further accept that there should be some level of Government intervention in the Atlantic research project?

Mr. Benn: The second point is not for me, as my hon. Friend will realise from the Answer that I have given. On the first point, we have played a leading part in discussing this proposal and have been, generally speaking, encouraged by the response we have received.

Mr. David Price: Can the Minister tell the House the Government's precise purpose in the European Technological Centre, because he will appreciate that a number of different purposes have been put forward in relation to the phrase "a European Technological Centre"? It would assist the House if the right hon. Gentleman could define it a little more precisely.

Mr. Benn: The object of the Centre is that European industry together should analyse the forward demand, particularly in the fields of advanced technology, and then analyse the existing industrial capability in Europe and see whether, by inter-industrial and inter-governmental action, Europe can be helped to meet more of its own needs and provide the home base upon which it can compete with Americans and others and develop an export market in this field.

Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that within the last few months plans have been

announced to establish two management-type technological institutes of the type he has just described? Is there not a danger that, if we do not move fairly soon, we shall need a further organisation to avoid overlap and duplication of all these technological institutes?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that is the case. I think that as Europe grows together, as Europe will grow together, because of the needs of technology, a number of techniques will have to be used to encourage and utilise this development. This is just not a matter of management. We are talking here about the development of European industrial capability.

Hanover Industrial Fair

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology by whom his Department was represented at the Hanover Industrial Fair; and what part his Department will play in furthering new technology arising therefrom.

Mr. Stonehouse: I visited the fair, accompanied by senior officials of the Department. I am of course concerned to see our industry exploiting any new technological developments which show promise of economic application, and the Department is ready to help in all appropriate ways.

Mr. Eadie: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just reading technical journals that can give us new ideas in technology, but that visiting such industrial fairs can help us to see at first hand the new ideas that are produced?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are very much in favour of our firms participating in the fair. I was very glad while there to see that over 150 United Kingdom firms had participated, and I am quite sure that they all gained a great deal of advantage from that participation.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is the Minister aware that one of the greatest services he could render British firms who exhibit at such fairs would be to put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the close company rule?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take note of that point.

National Coal Board (Technical Assistance)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology what assistance his Department gives the National Coal Board in relation to any new technology in the winning of coal.

Mr. Fowler: The National Coal Board's pioneering work in this field is financed out of its revenues and forms part of its research programme which is on lines settled with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. However, there are certain areas in which the Department gives limited assistance to the Board and to mining machinery manufacturers in specific technical developments.

Mr. Eadie: The House will not be too clear as to what that Answer means. Is my hon. Friend aware that at the Hanover Industrial Fair there was a coal machine which introduced the principle of using isotopes, which could to some extent improve the techniques of winning coal? Has he done anything about reporting this to the National Coal Board?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will make any necessary reports to the N.C.B. but the resources of my Department and its various stations have always been available to the N.C.B., and to any other industry, and the A.E.A.'s reactor group works with the N.C.B. by providing sensing devices using isotopes fitted to coal-hewing machinery.

Commercial Vehicles

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the reduction in manufacture in Great Britain of commercial vehicles exceeding 16 tons plated weight as a result of the provisions in the Transport Bill.

Mr. Benn: As forecast in the White Paper (Command 3470), the volume of traffic likely to be transferred to rail will be rather more than offset by the growth in the remaining road traffic. Vehicles of over 16 tons plated weight will share in this forecast growth. There should therefore be no decline in demand.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the economic efficiency and growing

popularity of large British lorries will be undermined when the frustrating processes proposed in the Transport Bill can be avoided if smaller vehicles are used? Is he aware that one estimate by manufacturers is that the reduction in the home market will be 25 per cent.

Mr. Benn: Part of the hon. Gentleman's Question involves transport policy. He asked me whether there would be a decline in demand for these vehicles. The answer is that there will not. If there were not the misleading propaganda put about by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends it is unlikely that the industry would be adversely affected.

Mr. Campbell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Microelectronic Production Technology

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology what response from industry he has had to his offer of support for microelectronic production technology.

Mr. Benn: Two microelectronic production technology contracts have been placed and as a result of more recent approaches by some of the leading firms to my Department and N.R.D.C., a wider support programme is now being examined.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that policy in this field represents something of a major success story for the Government? He referred to wider support in this field. Can he give any indication along what lines?

Mr. Benn: I think that my hon. Friend knows that when I made my original offer in March, 1967, there followed independently some rationalisation in this field. We have placed two contracts with Elliott and Ferranti, and the N.R.D.C. will be involved. But beyond describing what has happened and our general intentions, I do not think I can be drawn on details at this stage.

Pressure Vessel Committee of Inquiry

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to receive the report of the Pressure Vessel Committee of Inquiry; and whether he will publish it.

Dr. Bray: The Pressure Vessel Committee of Inquiry has completed its inquiries and is preparing a Consultative Document which my right hon. Friend hopes to receive before the end of July. We shall then seek advice from interested parties who submitted evidence to the Committee before a Final Report is published.

Mr. Dalyell: When is the consultative document likely to be published?

Dr. Bray: It is not the intention that it should be published.

Metric System

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Technology what recent steps he has made to establish the views of industry on the proposed change to the metric system of measurement; and if he will make a statement on the results.

Mr. Benn: As the Answer is rather long, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that there has been a substantial shift of opinion, particularly in engineering, over this question? One firm in my constituency with a wonderful export record tells me that it will cost it £1 million over five years, and it sees no advantage, as the United States has not given any indication of when it intends to change. Does not he accept that the whole question should now be reviewed?

Mr. Bonn: The hon. Gentleman's question puts one side of the case. The Government accepted in principle the first approach of industry in 1965 on this. A great deal of work has gone on, and no country has been able to establish a complete cost benefit study in this area. But the advice available to me now from the Standing Joint Committee is being studied. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await a further statement.

Mr. David Price: How extensive are the industrial contacts of the Standing Joint Committee on Metrication? Is it correct that it has recommended to the Government that British industry should go metric by the end of 1975?

Mr. Benn: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the report, which is to be published, but I can satisfy him that the

Government would want to know the views of a very wide number of people before reaching and announcing their final decision.

Sir A. V. Harvey: As the Government in the past 3½ years have gone back on most of their declared intentions, and as this is costing a great deal of money, will the Minister see that a decision is arrived at as soon as possible?

Mr. Benn: I accept the need for speed, but I think that the House will recognise that changing the system of measurement in a country is a very fundamental decision on which public opinion should have an opportunity of expressing itself. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment on the Government, I can only reply that as far as his targets are concerned a miss is as good as a kilometre.

Following is the Answer:

The Government's general policy towards the adoption of the metric system by British industry was stated by my right hon. Friend, the then President of the Board of Trade, on 24th February, 1965. As the various sections of industry decide to proceed, and formulate their metrication plans, these will be examined by the Government and when accepted will be given general support, through purchasing activities and otherwise. The views of industry on the changeover are therefore reflected in the plans and timetables which are produced by consultation among the various interests concerned, as described in my Answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on 30th April.

The advantages and disadvantages of changing to the metric system in industry are easy to describe, but not to estimate in money terms. All the disadvantages appear to consist of the expenses and difficulties of the transition period, and are a once-for-all cost, whereas the advantages are considerable and continuous. In brief they consist of the benefits of the larger markets and rationalised production that result from adopting a system of measures which is already used by 90 per cent. of the world's population, and which already dominates international trade. It will be the responsibility of particular industries and firms to decide the optimum timing of the changeover, taking account of the benefits they expect to derive from it, and their own estimate of transitional costs. The timetable they adopt will be incorporated in any plans they draw up collectively and individually.—[Vol. 713, c. 32–3; Vol. 763, c. 183.]

Technical Co-operation

Mr. Luard: asked the Minister of Technology which countries have been visited by Ministers in his Department for talks on technical co-operation; and


what technical agreements have been made with other countries.

Mr. Benn: Since January, 1967 visits have been made to 16 countries, details of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and talks on technological collaboration have been a main or a subsidiary purpose on each occasion.
There is a wide variety of agreement on technological exchange with other countries including those between individual scientists, formal agreements for projects such as Concorde, and numerous firm-to-firm agreements. General inter-Governmental Technological Agreements have been concluded between the United Kingdom and Rumania, Hungary, Poland, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, respectively.

Mr. Luard: Does the list include Japan? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there might be advantage in further technical co-operation with a number of countries outside Europe rather than concentrating so exclusively on European countries as we have so far?

Mr. Benn: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the need for spreading our technological co-operation as widely as possible. But in our relations with Eastern Europe there are special reasons why the technological agreement type of procedure has been followed, and in Western Europe this is very closely connected with our approach to European technological collaboration. But because the Government have not so far been engaged on wider visits than these it does not mean that we are not anxious to encourage our extension of relations with these countries.

Following are the details:

Visits by Ministers since January, 1967

Minister

Federal German Republic—(10th-11th January, 1967). Return visit to opposite number in Federal German Republic.

U.S.S.R.—(17th-21st April, 1967). Talks with Academician Kirillin, vice-chairman of the Council of Ministers and Chairman of the State Committee for Science and Technology. Anglo-Soviet Technological Agreement signed.

Canada and the U.S.A.—(18th-27th May, 1967). EXPO 67 and talks with opposite numbers in Canada; Water for peace conference in U.S.A.

Frence—(2nd-3rd June, 1967). Paris Air Show (with Minister of State).

Italy—(21st-22nd November, 1967). General Talks.

France—(11th December, 1967). With Minister of State to Toulouse for Concorde rollout.

France—(29th January, 1968). Address to Council of Europe at Strasbourg.

Federal German Republic—(20th-21st February, 1968). Address to Deutsch Gesellschaft Fϋr Aussenpolitik in Bonn.

Belgium—(26th-27th Feburary, 1968). Visit to Brussels.

France—(10th-12th March, 1968). O.E.C.D. meeting of Ministers of Science in Paris.

Rumania—(3rd-8th June, 1968). Review of progress under Anglo-Rumanian Technological Agreement.

Denmark—(12th-13th June, 1968). Visit to British Engineering Week Exhibition. Talks with Danish opposite numbers and addresses to Danish Professional Engineerings Association and British Import Union of Denmark.

Minister of State

France—(16th January, 1967). Discussion on aircraft project in Paris.

Federal German Republic—(26th-27th January, 1967). Airbus meeting in Bonn.

France—(8th-9th May, 1967). Discussions on aircraft projects in Paris.

Italy—(26th-27th May, 1967). Round Table Conferences on European problems in Turin.

France—(1st-3rd June, 1967). Paris Air Show (with Minister).

France—(13th June, 1967). Discussion on aircraft projects in Paris.

France—(22nd-23rd June, 1967). Discussions with French opposite number and inspection of Concorde at Toulouse.

Italy—(11th-13th July, 1967). European Space Conference in Rome.

U.S.S.R.—(11th-22nd September, 1967). Discussions on aviation topics.

Federal German Republic—(25th-26th September, 1967). Signature of airbus memorandum of agreement in Bonn.

U.S.A. and Canada—(4th-21st October, 1967), Visits to aviation firms.

France—(26th October, 1967). Ministerial Meeting in Paris.

France—(11th December, 1967). With Minister to Toulouse for Concorde rollout.

Czechoslovakia—(26th March-1st April, 1968). Signature of Anglo-Czechoslovak Technological Agreement.

Federal German Republic—(26th-30th April, 1968). Hanover Air Show and Trade Fair.

Australia and the U.S.A.—(9th-21st May, 1968). Signature of Agreement on future of Woomera; visits to aviation firms in U.S.A.

Dr. Bray, Joint Parliamentary Secretary

Yugoslavia—(7th-11th March, 1967). Opening of Exhibition of British Industrial Design in Zagreb; talks on technological cooperation with Yugoslav leaders.

Hungary—(19th-24th June, 1967). Talks on technological co-operation.

Belgium—(27th June, 1967). Visit to opening of reactor in Brussels.

Poland—(6th-11th October, 1967). Anglo-Polish symposium of Research and Development; signature of Anglo-Polish Technological Agreement.

Mr. Dell, Joint Parliamentary Secretary

Italy—(13th-l5th April, 1967). Milan Trade Fair.

France—(18th May, 1967). Paris Heating Exhibition.

France—(26th-28th May, 1967). Deauville Symposium.

Mr. Fowler, Joint Parliamentary Secretary

Finland—(21st-22nd October, 1967). Opening of steel plant.

Holland—(15th-16th January, 1968). Visit to Fokker works.

Holland—(8th-9th May, 1968). Philips Evoluon Exhibition.

Foundry Techniques

Mr. Lomas: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the result of the study he has made into securing more advanced foundry techniques.

Dr. Bray: The Department has made a preliminary survey of the foundry equipment industry, which is relevant to the promotion of more advanced foundry techniques and which is still under consideration. A need has been identified for the capability of offering complete packaged foundries.

Mr. Lomas: In view of the importance of foundries to many of the industries in my constituency of Huddersfield, may I ask the Minister to ensure that this study is given the very highest priority? Can he say whether it will be published?

Dr. Bray: Foundries are important to a very wide range of activities in the engineering industry, including the industries in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is unlikely that this report will be published, but we are anxious to see that users and makers of foundry equipment gain every benefit from the work done.

A.E.I. Laboratories, Blackheath (Closure)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Technology what action he has taken to ensure that the collective skill of those who were employed at the Associated Electrical Industries Advanced Development Laboratories, Blackheath, now closed down, is not lost to the country through dispersal.

Mr. Fowler: None, Sir. I do not accept that design and development teams should be excluded from the necessary processes of rationalisation taking place in industry, and I understand that

much of the work being done at Blackheath duplicated that being done elsewhere in the new G.E.C.-A.E.I. group. I am assured that almost all those who were employed at Blackheath have either accepted a transfer to other units in the G.E.C.-A.E.I. group or have already found alternative employment elsewhere.

Mr. Macdonald: What lessons has the Ministry of Technology, as distinct from the D.E.P., learned from this affair, and what steps has it taken to ensure that it will receive advice of any similar happening in the future, when there is to be a dispersal of collective technological skill, so that it may make representations before a final decision is taken?

Mr. Fowler: The Ministry does not necessarily have to be consulted before a private sector research establishment is closed down, although where Ministry of Technology projects are in progress we would expect to be consulted. Where the closure of a research establishment might lead to the break-up of a particularly valuable research team whose work might be lost to Britain we might also wish to intervene.

Hearing-Aid Batteries (Prices)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Technology (1) if he will now invite Mallory Batteries Limited to withdraw its price increases for hearing-aid batteries until such time as an agreement is reached with him in accordance with the recommendations contained in Report Number 64 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and if he will, make a statement;
(2) when he expects to conclude his negotiations with Mallory Batteries Limited on the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes that the average increase of 45 per cent. in the price of hearing-aid batteries should be withdrawn.

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he now proposes to take to implement the recommendations contained in Report No. 64 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes following his discussions with Mallory Batteries Limited.

Mr. Benn: As I have already informed the House, discussions are in train with


Mallory Batteries Limited on the recom-mendations of the Report, including that of withdrawing the price increases of 1st January, 1968. The company has now made proposals which are being carefully considered, and I hope that the issue will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion very soon.

Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's efforts in this respect, but is he aware that we have now been paying a 50 per cent. increase for over six months? Would he do all that he can to expedite a conclusion, especially for those hearing-aid batteries which have increased by 78 per cent.?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend will know the complications involved in this case, because he will have read the Prices and Incomes Board's Report. I am well aware of the desirability of resolving this matter as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it seems as though Mallory Batteries has turned a deaf ear to the Prices and Incomes Board? Is it not time that he shouted at it?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate the humour in my hon. Friend's question, but the firm is co-operating with us in the discussions now taking place.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I first corresponded with him about this matter eight months ago? Then he put me off, and passed me sideways to Aubrey Jones, Esq. After another four months we awaited a report, and now after another four months we are awaiting a statement. Is it always to take 12 months to solve a relatively simple problem of this sort?

Mr. Benn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a relatively simple problem at all. It involves the pricing of products of an international company, and various considerations which are extremely complicated. I am sure that, although everyone wants to get a rapid issue out of these discussions, the Prices and Incomes Board reference was very well worth while, and has contributed to a wider understanding of the problems raised by this sort of issue.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In these discussions now taking place is the right hon.

Gentleman satisfied that sufficient weight is being given to the enormous impact on the prices of these batteries that must inevitably follow from whatever type of hearing aid is adopted under the National Health Service? Has this point been fully considered?

Mr. Benn: My Department is, naturally, principally concerned with the pricing aspect, but we are very well aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, that the Health Service purchasing of a particular type of hearing aid affects the demand for, and hence the practical price of, different types of batteries.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that these batteries are produced much more cheaply elsewhere in the world than they are here? If his discussions do not succeed, would he consider the rôle that a Government-owned concern might play in the production of batteries?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that it would be helpful to speculate in answering a supplementary question, without having the figures, which are not available to me at the moment, about the cost of manufacturing these batteries elsewhere. I will take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Industry (Technological and Economic Surveys)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what industries, for which he has indirect responsibility through the research associations, are now being subjected to technological and economic surveys by his Department; and for what purpose.

Mr. Fowler: A survey of the castings industries in Scotland is being undertaken at the request of the Scottish Economic Planning Council to see what action is needed to stimulate the well being of the industry.

Mr. Osborn: Is it not true that many other firms and industries have been sent questionnaires? What is the cost of all this? How many people are involved? Will consideration be given to the publishing of an annual report by the Ministry of Technology outlining the extent of this work? This is by no means all the work being carried out.


Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree?

Mr. Fowler: I am certainly not aware of the numerous questionnaires to which the hon. Member refers. We should certainly be willing to publish a report if we had matters of substance on which to report. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to write to us and tell us to what he is referring.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what industries, for which he has responsibility, he has now asked the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to survey with a view to accelerating rationalisation.

Mr. Benn: My Department has close working relations with the Corporation in regard to the structural problems facing the engineering industries. As the hon. Member is aware, I recently invited the Chairman of the Corporation to advise me on the reorganisation of the nuclear power industry.

Mr. Osborn: Can the Minister state whether he has extended his inquiries and asked the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to look into other industries, for instance, the machine tool industry? Has he made any specific approach? Can he give an assurance to the contrary?

Mr. Benn: I think the position is that I.R.C. itself has a responsibility to look at the structure of industry, and so, indeed, do we, and we maintain very close contact at work level with the Corporation, maintaining security of information given to the Corporation and to us by industry. In view of the importance of continual contact, I do not believe that we could work it on any other basis. Of course, I.R.C. is departmentally responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

Mr. Moonman: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, in view of the comments made earlier, that I.R.C. is both commercially aggressive and intelligently organised, and would he not encourage it in trying to encourage possibilities of rationalisation in Europe?

Mr. Benn: I do not think I.R.C, which is a splendid example of public enterprise, needs any encouragement from me.

Mr. David Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the case of the nuclear engineering industry I.R.C. is merely advising the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will act directly with the companies concerned as, for instance, he did over the computer industry, and that I.R.C. has not got the right to produce a whole project, as, for example, it did in the recent scientific instruments case?

Mr. Benn: In the case of the nuclear power industry there are both public agencies like the Atomic Energy Authority and the C.E.G.B. involved as well as the consortia, and therefore any decision involving the industry would need to be a Government decision reached after further discussion with all those parties concerned; but it might well be that in the reorganisation there would be some part which I.R.C. might itself decide to play. I think I must ask the House to await the statement I hope to make on this subject later.

Land Reclamation

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Technology (1) whether he will seek to arrange that those who are considering the reclamation of the Welsh/Cheshire Dee, Morecambe Bay, Solway Firth, and the mudbanks off Foulness will visit the extension into the North Sea of Rotterdam/Europort, the Dutch delta scheme, and the tidal model at Delft, so as to appraise the relative importance of British tidal problems;
(2) what lessons that can be applied to Great Britain are being learnt from the massive reclamation of salt water areas in Holland for fresh water, agricultural and industrial land, and general amenity value, details of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Benn: Staff from my Department provide advice on tidal and other hydraulic problems associated with these schemes and they are in close and continuing touch with the Dutch work mentioned. These schemes are aimed to provide a variety of benefits including land reclamation and water conservation and transport facilities. Responsibility for them rests primarily with other departments.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Minister aware that land in the North Sea is being reclaimed


in an area which is now three times greater than the Port of London at about £3,000 an acre all in, and that Holland is growing geographically at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum? Is it not time that Britain grew by at least half as much?

Mr. Benn: The geographical rate growth to which the hon. Member refers, the growth of the United Kingdom, is not my responsibility, I am glad to say. What we do is to provide through the Hydraulic Research Station facilities for those agencies either abroad or at home to make use of the very formidable expertise in this work.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Hambros Bank (Chairman's Salary)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the increase in remuneration of the Chairman of Hambros Bank from £20,866 to £25,145 a year in the last 12 months, in addition to share dividends.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): The White Paper makes it clear that the principles of the policy apply to directors' remuneration and the Government expect directors to show the same sense of responsibility towards these principles as is being asked of wage and salary earners. We will be keeping the question of directors' remuneration under close review as details become increasingly available through the operation of the Companies Act, 1967. My right hon. Friend is having this particular case investigated.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that I very much welcome that reply? What does he think the railwaymen and the engineers feel about this—that there is one law for the poor and another for the rich, particularly Mr. Jocelyn Hambro?

Mr. Walker: I would hope that my reply made clear to the House that my right hon. Friend is determined that the policy should be universally applicable.

Mr. Ridsdale: But is the Minister aware that my constituents are much

more concerned about the 4 per cent. increase on the bus fares than the £5,000 increase in this man's salary, a large amount of which will come back in tax?

Mr. Walker: It is without question of tremendous concern that some people should apparently have an opportunity to escape the incomes policy, and we seek to put this right.

Motor Industry

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what redundancies she expects in connection with reorganisation now taking place in the motor industry; and what provision she is making to find alternative and productive work for the men made redundant.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am not aware of any proposed redundancy in this industry —several important firms are at present recruiting production workers—but we shall continue to keep in close touch with developments.

Mr. Edelman: Is my hon. Friend unaware of the great anxiety felt by the workers at Leylands, following the merger, and is it not timely for him to get in touch with both the employers and the trade unions with a view to forestalling redundancies or, failing that, at least to making provision for alternative work?

Mr. Walker: There have been some misleading Press rumours on this subject which Sir Donald Stokes, the Chairman of British Leyland Motor Corporation, has denied. He has undertaken to keep the Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Employment and Productivity fully informed in advance of any public announcement should there be any change in the present position.

Mr. George Cattell

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will define the prospective functions of Mr. George Cattell in her department.

Mr. Harold Walker: Mr. Cattell has been appointed Director, Manpower and Productivity Services and will be responsible for encouraging increased productivity wherever possible and facilitating redeployment of manpower needed by technological and industrial change.

Mr. Edelman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Cattell still has some unresolved problems to settle at Rootes in connection with the measured working day and piece work? Would it not be better for Mr. Cattell to deal with these problems before launching him into wider spheres?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Cattell has, temporarily at least, severed his connection with Rootes and has ceased to have responsibility for its policies. I understand that the measured working day scheme, for the introduction of which he was responsible, has broadly been accepted at the Rootes factories.

Mr. R. Carr: At the end of his Answer, the Under-Secretary said that Mr. Cattell would have responsibility for the redeployment of manpower in the light of technological change. Does this mean that he will in some way be responsible for the retraining programme?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

Mr. Peter Walker: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to minimise inconvenience to public and industry as a result of the rail dispute, and whether he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): rose—

Hon. Members: Where is the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Carmichael.

Mr. Carmichael: The expected reduction—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. In a matter so grave, should we not expect the Minister himself to reply?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for deciding what the House has a right to expect.

Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps I should say that my right hon. Friend had to leave for Carlisle early this morning to fulfil an important long-standing engagement. He will be back about 6 o'clock tonight. I have spoken to him within the last hour,

and he is in constant touch with the situation. I have been asked to reply in his absence.
The expected reduction in passenger and freight services on the railways this morning affected mainly night passenger services and the commuter services into London and other large cities. I regret that many thousands of people travelling to work were subjected to delay and discomfort. The London Transport underground railway was, however, running not far below normal and of course buses were running, though fuller than usual. The arrangements for special traffic regulations, extra car parks and the giving of lifts have given relief. There has so far been little effect on freight traffic: in particular, there has been no special difficulty in accommodating urgent freight which normally goes by rail.
The Government hope that the two unions will yet agree to accept the unanimous award of the Railway Staff National Tribunal, the industry's own official arbitration body: this would give their lowest-paid workers an immediate increase in pay. The Railways Board is ready to make rapid progress in the talks on pay and efficiency agreements which offer railway workers substantial increases in earnings. In the Transport Bill, the Government are giving the railways the chance of a progressive and secure future. But this will be jeopardised unless the pay and efficiency talks succeed.
The future of the railway system is in the hands of those who work in the industry. My right hon. Friend and I appeal to everyone in the railways to act responsibly and make that future a hopeful one.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that we fully support his view? It is a great tragedy that the railway unions have not accepted the unanimous decision as a result of the arbitration machinery. We hope, in the interests of the public, the economy, and, indeed, the railwaymen themselves, that they will swiftly accept this arbitration decision.
May I also ask the Minister whether he considers that there will be considerable deterioration in the situation as a result of the decision of A.S.L.E.F. to join the dispute from midnight tonight?
Can the hon. Gentleman do anything to increase the inter-city air services


operated as a substitute for the railways?
Will the hon. Gentleman see that the parking facilities in London are not confined to a number of boroughs, because there is great difficulty on the part of motorists in deciding whether to cross the boundary from one borough to another where extra parking facilities are provided?
Will the hon. Gentleman also look into the question of passengers switching perhaps from the Southern Region to the Underground, where their season tickets are not usable, and where, therefore, they are having to pay the additional fare?
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will be kept informed as the situation develops?

Mr. Carmichael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the hope for a quick and speedy solution to the problem. I take note of the points that he has raised and I will convey them to my right hon. Friend.
There has already been evidence that more inter-city air services will be put on, particularly on the Glasgow-London route, and perhaps others.
The other points on parking and the use of Southern Region season tickets on the Underground will be looked into. I also undertake to keep the House informed of all new developments.

Mr. Orme: Does my hon. Friend feel that there is some basic justification in the railwaymen's claim at present for an all-round increase and that this is the basis of the problem? Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend recommend the Railways Board, after years of procrastination, to negotiate on a basic all-round increase, which would lay the basis for the acceptance of the other terms which the Railways Board wants accepted?

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend should realise that this was the recommendation of the Railway Staff National Tribunal, the body set up by the unions and the Board to consider questions such as those which have arisen. There is no doubt that from January next year the railways, because of the beneficial effects of the Transport Bill, will be

working on a strictly commercial basis. I feel, and my right hon. Friend certainly feels, that the award recommended by the Tribunal is one which, if operated properly, can put the railways in the right position to act commercially, as well as allowing the lower-paid workers in the industry to get an immediate substantial increase.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to both unions that there is no question whatever of a general increase being paid unless it is fully justified by an increase in productivity under the prices and incomes policy and that such an increase could not be justified because of the effect it would have on other sectors of the economy?
Further, could we be told what further measures are being taken to ease the flow of traffic in central London? Will the hon. Gentleman appeal to the operators of heavy freight lorries not to come into London during the rush-hours in the morning and evening?

Mr. Carmichael: The dispute is largely about productivity. There is a productivity agreement being negotiated. This is being discussed between the Railways Board and the unions.
The police and traffic authorities are taking all possible steps to move tidal flow traffic into London. The point raised by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on parking will also be taken into account and kept under review and everything done so that commuters coming in by car will be able to find parking places.
The question of heavy commercial vehicles is a matter for the police. It will have to be watched carefully as the days progress.

Mr. Murray: Can my hon. Friend say whether, in view of not only the damage to the economy of the country by this go-slow, but also the frustration to thousands of commuters in and around London, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity are making early plans to call the two unions and the Railways Board together?

Mr. Carmichael: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and my right


hon. Friend the Minister of Transport are keeping the matter under close review and they are keeping watch on the reaction between the unions and the Railways Board. They are in constant touch and when they think it appropriate I am sure that they will call the two bodies together.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman make it crystal clear that the Government are backing the Railways Board with their present plans, and therefore that there will be no question of a thirteenth-hour sell-out in Downing Street? Will he help to get across to the railway staff that the interim offer is for an increase of up to 12 per cent. for 130,000 men? Will he get that across to the N.U.R. before its delegate conference next week?

Mr. Carmichael: There never was a thirteenth-hour sell-out. What happened on the previous occasion was that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called the two bodies together and started what has now become a productivity agreement. The only thing that my right hon. Friend did was to get established the idea that in future railway pay would be tied to productivity, which I think was a great service to the industry.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rejection by the railway staff of the Tribunal's award to railway workers is in itself an indication, since it is not obligatory, of the deep-seated feeling which prevails among railway workers? Would he not also agree that the basic wage rates of railway workers are appallingly low, and that there is, therefore, a need for a short-term settlement in that regard pending longer negotiations on productivity?

Mr. Carmichael: Yes, Sir. We agree that productivity is the key to any increase in wages on the railways. We also agree that there are strong underlying difficulties in the railway industry. This is why the Transport Bill was introduced, and why it is the first gleam of hope that the industry has had for many years.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking to ensure that our goods go from the factories to the ports, and food from the ports to shops and housewives? Will he now

take steps to ensure that we have an adequate alternative system to the railways, namely, a healthy road haulage industry, and to this end will he introduce appropriate Amendments to the Transport Bill when it is discussed in the other place?

Mr. Carmichael: We are, naturally, concerned that there should be a healthy road haulage industry. Despite the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite, this, again, is what we believe will be the result of the Transport Bill. Arrangements have already been made for the transfer of certain urgent commodities from rail to road, and we see no difficulty in increasing these transfers as time goes on.

Mr. Spriggs: If my hon. Friend is correct in saying that this dispute is about productivity, may I ask whether he is aware that the railway trade unions have in the past agreed to some of the best productivity agreements in industry? On that basis alone, are not the railway-men entitled to a fair deal?

Mr. Carmichael: I agree that workers in the industry have co-operated and participated in some outstanding productivity agreements. This is a new productivity agreement. It goes much wider than most of the previous ones, and it is believed by the Tribunal to be one which will bring railway workers better wages. We believe that if railway workers accept the benefits of this productivity agreement it will be for the good of the industry, and for themselves, too.

Mr. Hunt: While condemning the irresponsibility of the railwaymen who are currently causing chaos and inconvenience to the travelling public, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that there has not been some degree of complacency and wishful thinking on the part of the Government since the Prime Minister's instant intervention in March, 1966? Will he say, for example, what positive steps the Government have taken in more than two years since then to assist and speed up the pay and productivity talks?

Mr. Carmichael: First, no increase was given following the talks between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the railway industry. An agreement


such as this involves more than 300,000 employees, and two years is not excessive. I am sure that many private industries would not consider two years unduly long if it was necessary to work out as complicated a scheme as this, involving this number of employees.

Mr. Henig: May I press my hon. Friend a little further about the provision of parking facilities in the Metropolitan area? In particular, is it correct that in the Metropolitan area the operation of parking meters has been suspended from today? If that is so, does not my hon. Friend agree that it is much more difficult for the short-term user to find a parking meter? Also, does he think that traffic wardens should continue to issue tickets like confetti, as they have been doing this morning?

Mr. Carmichael: That is one of the questions which the police must take into consideration on a daily basis and find out exactly how the public are reacting. It appears that traffic today has been much lighter than most people expected, but the police and the traffic and parking authorities will no doubt keep in close touch with what is happening in their boroughs and in central London.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary introduction of the Transport Bill into his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that many people regard the switch of further traffic from the roads on to the railways as plain ruddy mad?

Mr. Carmichael: I brought in the Transport Bill because it is vital if we are to have a railway industry which will not be beset by problems such as those facing us today. We strongly believe that the Bill, in addition to being an integrated Measure for all transport, will give the railways hope and perhaps remove some of the problems raised by one of my hon. Friends about morale on the railways.

Mr. Mendelson: Will the Government bear in mind the deep feeling among those employed on the railways, as can be testified to by anyone who represents railwaymen, and there are a number of us in this House who do? Railwaymen feel that they have been left behind, and are always left behind. As my hon.

Friend knows, they were among the first to suffer under the standstill agreement after the legislation of July, 1966.
It is, therefore, most urgent to get the two parties together, under two or three senior Government Ministers, to consider all the problems involved, instead of listening to the traditional voices of the anti-trade union party on the benches opposite.
Finally, did my hon. Friend hear Mr. Jackson, the Assistant Secretary of A.S.L.E.F., on the one o'clock news, when he pointed the way to an agreement by saying that there should be an overall increase now, and that in the subsequent negotiations the productivity factor should be taken into consideration?

Mr. Carmichael: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's statement, that railway workers have always been the worst off. This is because the railway industry has never been properly reorganised, and again I come back to the Transport Bill. This Measure gives the railway industry a chance to be properly reorganised, and I am glad that my hon. Friends support it. I heard the statement by the Assistant Secretary of A.S.L.E.F. We shall be giving it serious consideration.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend that he should take an immediate initiative to avert the threatened strike of B.E.A.? Nothing has been done about the air strike, and if this one takes place it can only worsen the present situation.

Mr. Carmichael: I think that that is another question.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend repudiate the stupid and silly remarks coming from both the Tory and Liberal benches? Will he give us an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to get further conciliation in order to arrive at a settlement of this matter? Will he not take advice from the newspapers or from hon. Gentlemen opposite who, obviously, seem delighted that this strike is taking place?

Mr. Carmichael: I think that my hon. Friend is being unfair. There have been one or two very good suggestions from


the benches opposite, although undoubtedly many hon. Gentlemen opposite seem almost to be revelling in the idea that the strike is going on. I assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made within the Ministry of Transport and the Department of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State to try to find a solution to the problem.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that we strongly object to his remarks about my hon. Friends, all of whom have supported the Government's position that the unions should accept the unanimous award of the Railway Staff National Tribunal? In view of the Minister's remarks that he will give careful consideration to the request made by the Assistant Secretary of A.S.L.E.F., will he make it clear that the Government back the Board in sticking by the arbitration award?

Mr. Carmichael: I certainly will give that undertaking, but what I said—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me—was that many of the suggestions from the other side were very helpful—and I paid tribute to the fact that he had been very helpful in his remarks. Nevertheless, there were some statements from the other side which would not help the situation.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY)

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I will, with permission, make a statement about the recommendations of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Sainsbury which inquired into the relationship of the pharmaceutical industry with the National Health Service. I apologise for the length of the statement.
This relationship is very different from the normal relation between industry and the Government as purchasers. The Health Departments do not determine the demand for the drugs paid for under the Service, since decisions as to what to prescribe rest with individual doctors. The hospital service apart, there is no contractual relationship with drug suppliers. Successive Governments have

been concerned about these problems and the associated issues of prices, sales promotion, research costs and patents, and we are greatly indebted to the Committee for its authoritative and balanced Report.
Many of its detailed recommendations related to the establishment and functions of a Medicines Commission, and our conclusions on nearly all of them have been announced during the proceedings on the Medicines Bill. The exception is the recommendations that responsibility for classification of drugs according to their efficacy should pass from the Macgregor Committee to the Medicines Commission, and that there should be a British Classification of Medicines. The Bill in its present form would enable these recommendations to be implemented, but the Government wish to consult the Commission before reaching a final decision on them.
We doubt the need for a separate Economic Development Committee for the pharmaceutical industry, as the Sainsbury Committee recommended, but propose instead to invite the Chemicals Economic Development Committee, on which the pharmaceutical industry is already represented, to establish a separate working party for the industry.
As the Committee suggested, certain patent questions have been drawn to the attention of the Committee on the British Patent System and Patent Law. The extension of the Crown use provision of the Patents Act to the general medical and pharmaceutical services, on which the Sainsbury Committee made a specific recommendation, will be considered further by the House during the passage of the Health Services and Public Health Bill.
As regards prices and profits, the Government accept the Committee's general conclusions that there are serious weaknesses in the present voluntary scheme for regulating prices of ethical proprietary medicines, and that the conditions under which these medicines are supplied to the National Health Service do not always ensure that prices and profits are reasonable.
The Committee recommended that prices should in future be regulated by a system of direct negotiation, based on


standard cost returns for individual products, and related to annual financial returns for each company showing the results of trading with the National Health Service. It envisaged that such a system would involve considerable addition to the Ministry's staff and recognised that it would be for the Government to decide whether this was the best use of additional Civil Service manpower.
There are practical considerations which would make it difficult to negotiate prices on a basis of standard cost returns, but, in any event, shortage of manpower would be a major obstacle at the present time. The industry is, however, willing to co-operate in alternative arrangements based on the annual financial return also recommended by the Sainsbury Committee, under which information, in far greater detail than hitherto, would be provided by individual firms about the overall costs and profitability of their business with the National Health Service, as the basis for price negotiations.
Subject to agreement on detail, we would accept a revised voluntary price regulation scheme on these lines, running perhaps for a minimum of three years. Although we reserve the right to reopen the question of Standard Cost Returns for individual products, the industry will have a chance to demonstrate that these new arrangements can safeguard the public interest.
The Committee also recommended that there should be no brand names for new pharmaceutical products. We share the Committee's view that there are disadvantages in the use of brand names in association with heavy sales promotion expenditure, but we believe that the abolition of brand names by Britain in isolation could well have more serious economic consequences than the Committee envisaged, and would in particular be likely to put British-based firms at a disadvantage in export markets.
Any amendment of the trade mark law also needs to take account of our international obligations. Before reaching final conclusions on where the balance of advantage lies, we propose to explore other possible ways of achieving the Committee's objectives, in particular, through greater restraint in sales promotion.
Present sales promotion involves a good deal of waste and total expenditure is

higher than is necessary for the main objective as far as the National Health Service is concerned, namely, informing doctors about available medicines. We accept that the industry should have a reasonable degree of freedom in promoting its products to doctors, but we shall expect a very substantial reduction in the amount of promotional expenditure, particularly that which is taken into account in assessing a firm's costs and profits under the revised price regulation scheme.
There will need to be further negotiations on this and other matters, but I am confident that the decisions taken by the Government will go far to remedy the weaknesses identified by the Sainsbury Committee.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the Minister aware that we heard his statement with relief, indeed, in some places with approval, especially his decision not to abolish brand names in view of their importance in the export market and our agreements with other countries? Is he further aware that we do not altogether accept his link between brand names and promotion? I would like to ask him four specific questions.
First, with regard to the transfer of functions from the Macgregor Committee to the Medicines Commission, can he assure the House now that this in no way alters his previous assurances that the Medicines Commission will consider only relative safety, and not relative efficacy, when it comes to the issue of licences, and in no way can be used in the future to limit the doctor's right to prescribe or the chemist's right to fulfil those prescriptions?
Second, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the arrangements based on annual financial returns which, I understand, are to be voluntary. Am I right in assuming that they will give him information about the proportion of turnover to profits that the industry gets from its sales to the Health Service?
Third, when he comes to consider prices, can he give the House an assurance that he will bear in mind that an innovating industry based on research, like the pharmaceutical industry, requires a relatively high proportion of working capital to turnover, particularly if it is to expand successfully?
Lastly, on the question of patent rights, can he tell the House when the Banks Committee is likely to report and whether he will not consider postponing the question of patent rights from the further stages of the Health Services and Public Health Bill until the legislation on patent rights generally, which is foreshadowed by that Committee?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. If I may take his points in order, certainly, the decision about the Macgregor Committee and the Medicines Commission in no way qualifies the assurances that I have given during the course of the Medicines Bill about comparative efficacy and licensing, or about the doctor's right to prescribe.
The annual financial returns will give us a great deal more information than we have had in the past. We have in mind that the information will be based on that which was obtained by the Sains-bury Committee as a result of its questionnaire to the individual companies in the industry.
Of course, I take the hon. Gentleman's point about research, as did the Sains-bury Committee. One recognises the importance of research to the industry, but I do not think that the necessity for research need justify some levels of profit which have been earned by certain companies in the past.
Lastly, on the Banks Committee, I understand that the Committee will not report until next year, but the Sainsbury Committee's recommendation about Section 46 of the Patents Act was as I said in my statement, a specific recommendation which it did not recommend should be referred to the Banks Committee, and we shall have to await the return of that Bill to the House from another place.

Dr. Summerskill: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it would appear that the Government have succumbed to strong pressure from the drug firms in that they have rejected the clear recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee to abolish all brand names and introduce specific measures to reduce prices?

Mr. Robinson: On the last of my hon. Friend's two points, we are introducing quite specific measures with the

express purpose of reducing the prices of phamaceutical products to the Health Service.
On the question of brand names, my hon. Friend may be under a slight misapprehension. I would refer her to what the Sainsbury Committee said in its recommendation about brand names. It said only that abolition would perhaps tend to reduce the cost of medicines. The Committee's main argument was that brand names tended to extend the monopoly position beyond the period of the patent. Since the proposal was made only in relation to new drugs, it ought to be clear to my hon. Friend and the House that even had this recommendation been accepted the advantages to the Health Service would only begin to accrue after 16 years.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the Minister aware that, far from what was said by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), the retention of brand names will keep British pharmaceutical products very competitive in world markets? Is he further aware that any drastic reduction in promotional costs could be damaging to the need to get vital information across to doctors and to the industry in the way of stopping the introduction of important new drugs?

Mr. Robinson: I have accepted that it is important that information should be conveyed to doctors, but I have also indicated that the general level of promotional expenditure in the past has gone far beyond discharging that necessity.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the use of a single accepted name for each pharmaceutical product has enormous advantages in the teaching and practice of medicine? As for exports, does he not agree that some of the most successful of our exports, like insulin, do not carry branded names and that many of those that do carry different names abroad from those by which they are known here? When he looks further at this, would he pay a little less regard to the views of the drug industry and a little more to those of other interested bodies?

Mr. Robinson: We have considered a whole range of views on this. I think that my hon. Friend underestimates the possible adverse effects that this would


have in the export market. But certainly from the point of view of the costs of the National Health Service I would stress once again that there could have been no immediate benefit from acceptance of this recommendation, even if we had thought it desirable on other grounds.

Mr. Crouch: I note the Minister's statement about his attitude towards patent law and the question of drugs, because I am concerned about the possible withdrawal of patent protection to the holders of such patents for such inventions. Does he not consider that the application of Section 46 of the Patents Act is a rather blunt instrument to deal with the problem which he faces, and, instead, would not a system of arbitration be a belter solution than the application of such a blunt instrument?

Mr. Robinson: I am not sure how blunt the instrument is, but I have always made it clear that it is an instrument of last resort. There are grave difficulties in the way of the kind of solution that he suggests. I would remind him that what this House did on the Health Services and Public Health Bill was not to establish any new principle of any kind. The principle was established. All that we did was what Sainsbury thought logical, and on which I agree, and that is to extend the protection that the Crown has at the moment for the hospital service to the general medical and pharmaceutical services.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has gained the approval of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite at the expense of the disapproval of a number of hon. Members on this side of the House? By his rejection of the eight key points on standard cost returns in place of a voluntary system, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry has had more influence on him than his hon. Friends.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that we would like an early debate to consider whether the refusal to appoint a separate "Little Neddy" and merely having a working party is not inadequate? Will he look further at the whole question of brand names, because this is the kind of point where the Sainsbury Committee has made a moderate and mild recommendation which he has seen fit to reject?

Mr. Speaker: Order. A long supplementary question cuts out someone else.

Mr. Robinson: When my hon. Friend says that the Sainsbury Committee had a very mild recommendation on brand names, I would agree with him. The Sainsbury Committee did not claim that very much financial benefit would follow acceptance of its recommendation.
On the question of standard cost returns, I would ask my hon. Friend to read again what the Committee said. It suggested that the additional staff that would be required for this would perhaps amount to a whole division in the Ministry. It is clear that at a time when we are holding back Civil Service manpower it would be quite impossible to increase the staff of my Department to that extent.
Further, there are grave practical difficulties about treating these matters on the basis of standard cost returns for individual products. But I am sure that the annual financial returns will equalise the negotiating positions of the two sides in future price negotiations. I do not think that the Sainsbury Committee suggested that anything should be imposed on the industry if agreement could be reached.

Mr. Fortescue: The Minister said that his Department would expect substantial reductions in promotional expenditure on medicines. Could he assure the House that that does not mean that the Ministry will interfere directly in the marketing policies of pharmaceutical companies?

Mr. Robinson: No. This is not direct interference. By this statement, we have put the industry on notice that we shall expect substantial reductions in promotional expenditure, and, in particular, in the levels of promotional expenditure which are allowed for in National Health Service drug prices.

Mr. Whitaker: What figure does my right hon. Friend consider a reasonable rate of return of profit on drugs? Second, in view of the fact that the prescription of brand names in place of cheaper non-proprietary equivalents has cost the country several million pounds unnecessarily since the war, what new measures is my right hon. Friend taking to prevent this abuse?

Mr. Robinson: On reflection, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to suggest a particular figure as a reasonable level of profit—

An Hon. Member: Why not?

Mr. Robinson: —for the entire industry, because different circumstances may require different degrees of reasonableness. As for brand names, I understand that my hon. Friend is suggesting that there might be considerable savings if we were to have unbranded exact equivalents prescribed in all circumstances. I have answered Questions to hon. Members and, I think, to my hon. Friend showing that that is not the case and that the amount of savings if exact equivalent non-proprietary versions were prescribed by doctors, would be only about £1 million a year.

Mr. Whitaker: But why not save that amount?

Lord Balniel: Is the Minister aware that we feel that in the interests both of the industry and of National Health Service he is right to resist proposals to place the industry in a stricter framework of Government control? In particular, may I assure him that we welcome his decision to proceed with a modified voluntary price regulation scheme instead of the proposed standard cost returns scheme, because that would stifle initiative and hinder efficiency in the industry.

Mr. Robinson: I am quite sure that as a result of the Sainsbury Committee's investigation of the industry we shall have a more satisfactory voluntary price regulation scheme in future than we had had in the past.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on with today's business.

Orders of the Day — MEDICINES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Speaker: As is my wont, I have posted up the list of selected Amendments. I believe that there is only one change.

Clause 45

SALE OR SUPPLY OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS ON GENERAL SALE LIST

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 39, line 20, leave out subsection (4).
In moving the Amendment I am seeking the Minister's answer to a particular question and also trying to ensure that some of the things which we fear may be possible under the Clause as worded are made impossible. An idea has grown up in some quarters that the sale of medicines and medicinal products should be completely restricted to pharmacists. As far as I know, it is not the intention of the Bill to make that restriction. It has further been put forward that should a general sale list be accepted—and that is the purpose of the Clause—all non-pharmaceutical outlets in which general sale lists products are offered for sale should be registered.
The Minister has already stated that he would be opposed to such a procedure; indeed, it would be a very laborious and difficult one to carry out. Nevertheless, subsection (4) enables him to do precisely that. It is difficult to understand any other purpose of the subsection. Clause 58 enables the Minister to prescribe additional regulations, including any additional requirements that he may feel necessary to make quite sure that the conditions for selling medicinal products are proper for their safety and for the retention of their quality.
We all understand that places where medicines and medicinal products— however common household remedies they may be—are sold must conform to standards of sanitation and care and that medicines must be properly safeguarded


in the shop which sells them. But subsection (4) gives the Minister precisely those powers which he has said he does not require. I therefore suggest that medicines on the general sale list should be allowed to be sold on terms which are generally possible and within the easy competence of the village shop— because that is the real importance of a general sale list—and that what we might call household remedies should be freely available to the public in such a shop, and that the restrictions which apply to the sale of medicines on prescription should not apply to these household remedies and that the places where they are sold should not be subject to licence or registration.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): The power which the Amendment would remove from the Bill is not one of which I foresee extensive use being made in the immediate future. There an;, however, possibilities which we must take into account. A regulation prohibiting a drug store from acting as a collecting point for prescriptions is something we shall have to consider, if only because a similar prohibition already exists in Section 1 of the Pharmacy and Medicines Act, 1941.
Although, for the present, I have rejected as unjustified any idea of the registration of premises selling general sale list products we cannot rule it out entirely as a future possibility, since there might be some point in requiring the occupier of such premises to notify some appropriate authority that he is selling general sale list drugs. This would be simply for the purpose of knowing where enforcement may be needed, and not to introduce any form of permission to sell general sale list products. A lot will depend on our experience and how extensive the general sale list turns out to be.
Furthermore, special conditions might be found desirable in relation to the sale of veterinary medicinal products at stalls, vans, and places other than premises.
Although we have no immediate proposal to make use of subsection (4) it is an integral part of the general scheme of the Bill for the public's protection and also for the protection of the responsible trader against the less responsible.
For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Mrs. Jill Knight: The question of consumers' interests and convenience is involved here. The Minister is well aware of this, and of the grave concern that many of us feel on this point. In Committee, it was said that until the publication of the general sale list we could not be sure what would or would not be barred from sale in the local corner shop or village shop and so could not be sure how greatly incommoded the consumer would be. This is true, but it does not allay our fears.
It is very convenient for busy women to be able to buy their brand of cough medicine, indigestion tablets, and so on, at their local shop. They would be greatly concerned if they were suddenly to find that because of the provisions of the Bill they could obtain these products only from a chemist's shop. In many areas chemists' shops are few and far between. I know that a system operates which allows chemists' shops to be open late at night, but they are not open as late as are many useful corner shops which serve the public very well.
Nothing that the Minister has yet said has allayed the fears of some people that consumers will be incommoded by the Bill. I strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I have no idea—and I do not think that the Minister has—how many veterinary products will be included in the general sale list. Subsection (2) excludes all veterinary drugs from the restrictions imposed in respect of the general sale list. I ask the Minister once again to look at the way in which the Bill is drafted and to consider whether, in another place, a new subsection can be inserted laying down broad controls of the type needed for the sale of veterinary drugs in respect of their sale from the backs of cars, lorries or on market stalls, and so on. They should be allowed to be sold in comparative freedom. There is a need for some control, but the best way is not regulations under this subsection. It would be much better for the veterinary and agricultural industries if they knew


much more clearly under what regulations these drugs could be sold.
I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this point from the veterinary side.

Mr. David Crouch: I was not on the Committee when this point was considered, but I am surprised that it is still before the House. I spoke against this provision on Second Reading. The Minister has told us that it is, to use my description, an open-ended Clause so that he can decide later whether he needs to invoke it. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, that, despite the need to protect the individual against indiscriminate purchases of relatively harmless drugs, it is wrong for the Government to impose restrictions on such things as aspirin and cough mixture, other than those already protected which contain poisonous elements.
Laxatives, aspirin, indigestion tablets and cough mixture are a help to the Health Service and the busy doctor, since they can be sold at at least 100,000 places, and if they were restricted only to pharmacists, of whom there are only 16,000, people's ability to seek a remedy without bothering the doctor or being a cost to the nation would be greatly limited.
I feel as strongly about this now as I did some months ago and I am surprised that the Government are leaving in this open-ended Clause. I hope that our speeches will be taken as serious representation, since this would be a contribution to the health of the nation and to the individual's opportunity to cure himself.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I wonder how often the Minister will be asked to give the assurance that he has no intention of restricting the sale of medicines to pharmacists. Most of us were members of the Committee and know that then, on Second Reading and at other times, my right hon. Friend has repeated that he has no intention of abolishing the general sale list. I have yet to hear any hon. Member asking for such restrictions or any responsible person asking for a total ban on the sale of medicines outside pharmacists.
I have always claimed, however, that medicines should be treated differently from most other products, since, although a packet of aspirins costs much the same as a packet of starch, they are not the same. Medicines should be treated with respect. No doubt my right hon. Friend will give this assurance, but I hope that it will be for the last time. My right hon. Friend has given as a reason for this power the fact that it might be useful for a local authority to know the shops in its area where products on the general sale list are being sold. There have been many examples of something which was thought to be safe proving unsafe and it has been necessary to regulate them, in which case the normal procedure is through the trade registers. But as commerce gets more complicated, products may pass not just from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer but through more than a dozen hands.
This would be a safe and clear way of ensuring that, if this happened, registration would be a useful way of getting the product off of the market as soon as possible. For that reason alone, I am glad that this Clause is retained as a reserve power.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: In the village shop, the business, to use the words of the subsection,
so far as concerns the sale or supply of medicinal products … ",
is inextricably entwined with the rest. Aspirins and indigestion tablets are sold along with apples and newspapers, and any regulations—at least this is our fear —might apply to the whole of that business, thereby making it the easy way out for the shopkeeper to stop selling medicinal products altogether.
This point was made in Committee, but was not answered, and I should be grateful if the Minister would look at the subsection again.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) on saying that this assurance has been given time and time again. I realise as much as anyone the difficult task which my right hon. Friend has. The pressures about the Clause and this Amendment are part of the pressure for the maximum freedom, and he must consider, as well


as people's ability to get family remedies, also a safeguard against too much self-medication.
The Clause is drawn with these difficult considerations in mind. The availability of these remedies and the necessity for safety and for ensuring that someone who needs an early diagnosis should not seek out these remedies shows that the Clause has been drawn rightly and I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.

Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) talked about these anxieties which she has talked about before. I wonder whether anyone feels them as well; certainly, she has done her best to stimulate them elsewhere—

Mr. Crouch: I feel them.

Mr. Robinson: I will come to the hon. Gentleman later, because he totally misunderstood the Clause and the Amendment.
If it is necessary for me to repeat what my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) have said on my behalf, the whole existence of the general sale list should be proof that we intend that there shall be such a list. I would say to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that all that the Clause does is give the Minister power, if at some date it seemed necessary and expedient, in the interests of the public safety to lay down conditions about the conduct of the business of such a general store insofar as it sold medicinal productions.

To the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), I repeat that it is largely as a result of similar arguments to those which he put forward that I said that we have no intention at present of prescribing regulations, but we think that there should be a possibility of doing so later should that be thought desirable. One possibility which I set out in reply to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) dealt with the point that there might be a case in future for requiring such premises to notify their names to some central authority, perhaps a local authority, simply so that someone will know where inspection might take place. But, as I say, this is a possibility for the future which would not exist if we were to accept the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree to keep the subsection in the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Since the Minister's explanation seems to be that he requires the provision for administrative convenience in case he, or a successor, wishes to interfere at some time in future, and since it still appears to us that Clause 58 provides him with all the possible powers he could need to deal with the conduct of such a business, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 159.

Division No. 229.]
AYES
[4.31p.m.


Balniel, Lord
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Batsford, Brian
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eyre, Reginald
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos, &amp; Fhm)
Fisher, Nigel
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Foster, Sir John
Lane, David


Braine, Bernard
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grant, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Loveys, W. H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lubbock, Eric


Clark, Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Cordle, John
Hawkins, Paul
McMaster, Stanley


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Crouch, David
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Marten, Neil


Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B.
Maude, Angus


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holland, Philip,
Mawby, Ray


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hordern, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hornby, Richard
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Doughty, Charles
Hunt, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)




Monro, Hector
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


More, Jasper
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Murton, Oscar
Royle, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Nott, John
Silvester, Frederick
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)



Peel, John
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Henig, Stanley
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Armstrong, Ernest
Horner, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hoy, James
Randail, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rankni, John


Beaney, Alan
Hunter, Adam
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. C. W.


Binns, John
Hynd, John
Richard, Ivor


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Gwilym (B'edfordshire, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roebuck, Roy


Brown, Hugn D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kenyon, Clifford
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W hampton, N. E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Kerr, Russell (Fettham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius


Chapman, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, Arthur


Coe, Denis
Lee, John (Reading)
Slater, Joseph


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lestor, Miss Joan
Small, William




Snow, Julian


Dalyell, Tarn
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lomas, Kenneth
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dobson, Ray
MacDermot, Niall
Swain, Thomas


Doig, Peter
Mackie, John
Symonds J B


Driberg, Tom
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas Rt Hn George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


Eadie, Alex
Mendelson, J. J.
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ensor, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wallace, George


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, Roland
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ford, Ben
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilkins W. A.


Fowler, Gerry
Murray, Albert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Garrett, W. E.
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Gregory, Arnold
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woof, Robert


Harming, William
Park, Trevor



Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Neil McBride.

Clause 47

EXEMPTIONS FOR DOCTORS, DENTISTS, VETERINARY SURGEONS AND VETERINARY PRACTITIONERS

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in

page 39, line 42, after "product" insert "(a)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment, we may discuss Amendments Nos. 61 and 62.

Mr. Snow: In Standing Committee on 30th April my right hon. Friend said that


we proposed to move an Amendment on Report to fill a gap that had been discovered in the application of Clause 47 —then Clause 46—to hospitals.
As Clause 44 is drafted, the supply of a medicinal product not on the general sale list
… in circumstances corresponding to retail sale…
is subject to a number of requirements including, in particular, that the supply is by a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business and is supervised by a pharmacist. The expression
… supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale …
is. defined in Clause 117(3)(c). In a hospital, such supply might be held to take place when the patient receives the medicine, and not, in the case of an in-patient, at the time when it is dispensed and the pharmacist hands it over to some other member of the hospital staff who will be responsible for its administration.
The expression "under the supervision of a registered pharmacist" was considered by the High Court in 1943 in the case of Roberts v. Littlewood's Mail Order Stores Limited. The court decided that a pharmacist in an upstairs room could not be said to be "supervising" a sale in the shop below which he did not know was taking place.
If these two points are taken together, it appears that the supply of a medicine not on the general sale list by a hospital to a patient would be unlawful, because the hospital was not a pharmacy business conducted under the conditions in Clause 63, and might also be unlawful if the pharmacist did not actually supervise the supply of the medicine to the patient. In addition, a hospital using a general sale list drug might be in difficulty over complying with Clause 45, especially subsection (3) which has retail shops in mind.
Clause 47, as drafted, does not fully meet this difficulty, because it refers to supply by a doctor and this would not cover the normal hospital case where the doctor gives directions for the medicine to be provided but the supply takes place from the hospital's stocks of medicine and not from the doctor's own stock.
The principal purpose of the Amendments is, accordingly, to meet this point,

both in hospitals and in the analogous circumstances which may arise in health centres, clinics and nursing homes. The Amendments also cover the supply of a product to an out-patient, and the supply of a product by a nurse or midwife in the exercise of her profession.
It will be necessary in due course to make provision for various other categories of person—for example, ambulance attendants, mountain rescue teams, and the like—who supply a limited range of medicinal products in circumstances where it would be quite unreasonable to require strict observance of the provisions of Clauses 44 and 45. However, these other exemptions are of less importance than those covered by the present Amendments and can, I think the House will agree, adequately be dealt with by means of Orders under Clause 49.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I entirely agree with everything my hon. Friend says that he is trying to do by means of these Amendments, but as I am not quite sure whether it is done by this method perhaps I might make two or three points on the wording.
As I understand, the object of these Amendments is to stop up a hole, because the Bill as at present framed does not cover the case of a hospital supplying a drug under the direction of a doctor or dentist to a patient in the hospital. In that case, why is it necessary to have in Amendment No. 61 the words "… sold, offered for sale …"? I do not quite understand in what circumstances a hospital might need to sell or offer for sale in the course of its business as a hospital or health centre a drug which is to be administered in accordance with the directions of a doctor or dentist.
Exactly the same point applies to paragraph (c) in the same Amendment: in what circumstances would a midwife or certified nurse want to sell or offer to sell a drug? As my hon. Friend knows, there is a great distinction between administering a drug in accordance with a doctor's direction and selling or offering it for sale. While I entirely accept what my hon. Friends seeks to do, I am not sure whether, by including these words, he has not gone too far if the Amendment is designed to cover sales or offers for sale to the public. It would mean that a hospital or health centre would be able


to do so without any certified person being responsible for the sale or supply provided only that the medicine was administered in accordance with the directions of a doctor or dentist. There is an enormous gap here, and I cannot believe that that is part of the Government's intention.
Further, if it is the intention of the Government to put hospitals and health centres in a separate category, is my hon. Friend sure that the Minister's discretionary powers to make conditions in respect of them under Clause 65 would still be there if the exempion is based on the form of the Amendment? If the exemption is unconditional, I doubt whether the Minister's power under Clause 65 still exists. If so, not only does the Minister not have the power to regulate now but he may not have it in the future.
Again, can my hon. Friend imagine circumstances in which the professional duties of registered nurses and certified midwives would require them to sell or offer to sell a product, as opposed to administering it? In any case, to refer to the supply, sale or offering for sale of any medicine
… by a person in the course of that person's profession …
seems to go rather wide of anything that might be regarded as necessary.
Would not my hon. Friend consider that in regard to registered nurses and midwives it might not be better to deal with the matter by way of an alternative arrangement specifying the medicines that are to be affected by the exemption? I understand that there is a parallel here in the arrangements by which midwives can obtain, without prescription, certain medicines certified by the Central Mid-wives' Board as necessary for a midwife to use in her work. One might in that way avoid the wideness there seems to be in the Amendment.

Mr. Pavitt: I do not wish to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in his legal arguments—I leave that to the Parliamentary Secretary—but I agree that this widens the provisions in respect of the people named. The whole question of the provision of drugs and the supply of prescriptions is likely to be dealt with in discussion of the White Paper, which will follow, and that might affect our

approach to the subject. In Committee, we provided for a number of things that were not provided for earlier. We are conscious that, later, we shall be discussing the whole range of the National Health Service.
I am interested to know whether this is a paving Amendment to the kind of discussion we may have arising from the Green Paper.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I understood from the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee that this would be a comprehensive Amendment. He would be the first to accept that there are exceptions who should be included in this list, such as ambulance drivers, and he is relying on the provisions of Clause 49 to be able to bring them in. In my constituency there is an amount of mountain rescue and pot-holing rescue. I hope that the gap between bringing the Act into force and making the Regulations will not be too great or there might be difficulty in those circumstances.

Mr. Snow: The point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) is quite correct. We thought that in the circumstances we should give priority to those most concerned, nurses and midwives. As I said in my original remarks, we shall be considering what regulation or Order might be necessary in respect of outfits such as those used by mountain rescue teams and so forth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) referred to the coming Green Paper, but this Amendment is not relevant to what is likely to be in that Paper. The direct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is that we have to provide under the Bill not only for the National Health Service, but for private elements of medicine as well. The application of these Amendments is directed towards the private hospital or home where there might be sale to a patient in certain cases by the proprietor of a private nursing home or the relevant committees through agents.
With these explanations, perhaps the House might feel disposed to accept these three Amendments.

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has departed from


his normal practice of using some finesse in these matters and has descended to the use of a blunderbuss. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has spoken about pot-holing rescues. That reminded me of the interests I have as representing a coalmining constituency.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider not only the sport of pot-holing, but also official mine rescue teams in the coal industry. One man in 10 in the mines, although he may not be skilled in rescue generally down the pit, is skilled in first-aid. The regulations might have to include that class of person, who is certificated for the administration of drugs and that kind of thing.

Mr. Snow: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that, since I represent a coal-mining part of England, I shall certainly watch what goes on about additional provisions required.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 61, in page 39, line 43, at end insert: ' or
(b) in the course of the business of a hospital or health centre, where the product is sold, offered for sale or supplied for the purpose of being administered (whether in the hospital or health centre or elsewhere) in accordance with the directions of a doctor or dentist, or
(c) by a person in the course of that person's profession as a registered nurse or as a certified midwife, or, in relation to England and Wales, an exempted midwife'.

No. 62, page 40, line 3, at end insert:
(3) Expressions to which a meaning is assigned by subsection (2) of section 11 of this Act have the same meanings in this section as in that section.—[Mr. Snow.]

Clause 48

EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF HERBAL REMEDIES

Amendment made: No. 63, in page 40, line 17, leave out from 'where' to end of line 25 and insert:
'the person selling or supplying the remedy sells, or supplies it for administration to a particular person after being requested by or on behalf of that person and in that person's presence to use his own judgment as to the treatment required '.—[Mr. Snow.]

Clause 50

MEDICINAL PRODUCTS ON PRESCRIPTION ONLY

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 41, line 37, at end insert:
(6) Before making an order under this section the appropriate Ministers shall consult the appropriate committee, or, if for the time being there is no such committee, shall consult the Commission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can consider Amendment No. 67.

Mr. Robinson: These two Amendments provide for compulsory prior consultation with the appropriate Clause 4 Committee, or the Commission, before making an Order listing products that may be sold or supplied on prescription only —Clause 50—or making regulations limiting, in exceptional circumstances, the sale or supply of specified products except by specially authorised practitioners or to their prescription.
In Standing Committee on 2nd May, on an Amendment by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), I undertook to reconsider the position regarding prior consultation on Clause 50, then Clause 49. The first Amendment fulfils this. It was thought appropriate to include the same provisions in Clause 52 which, in its limited field, is a more stringent requirement than Clause 50.

Mr. Paul Dean: We are obliged to the Minister for meeting the plea we made in Committee. When I withdrew the Amendment proposed to Clause 50 on the undertaking of the Minister that he would reconsider it, he expressed the hope that we would not look for "umpteen" other places in the Bill where such Amendments could be made. We have restricted ourselves to this part of the Bill which is an important and sensitive area involving the rights of doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons and practitioners to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense. It is of the greatest importance that these rights should not only be preserved, but should be seen to be preserved.
The Minister, by these Amendments, has gone a long way to meet the points


made, but he has not gone quite so far as we should have liked. We pressed for specific words safeguarding the rights of practitioners to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense. I hope that his mind is still not closed, even at this late hour, on this matter because I am sure he recognises that there are real and well-founded fears among doctors and vets on this score.
I ask two specific questions. The first concerns the composition of the "appropriate committee" referred to in the Amendments. The Minister will not want to pre-empt the advice received in due course from the Medicines Commission, but I hope that he will assure the House that the medical and veterinary professions will be fully represented on these committees which he is obliged under these Amendments to consult.
The second question is a very minor one. Amendment No. 66 says, "Before making an order", whereas Amendment No. 67 says, "Before making any regulations". It may be that this is a procedural difference, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House about it.

Mr. K. Robinson: I think I am right in saying that one Clause provides for the making of an Order and the other for making regulations.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) spoke of "real and well-founded fear" among the professions about the right to prescribe. I doubt very much whether there are any real fears. I am absolutely certain that if there are they are not well-founded. I have given the assurance many times that there is nothing in the Bill which compromises the doctor's right to prescribe. I hope that I repeat it now for the last time.
I think there is little doubt, although the composition of these expert committees will be drawn up in consultation with the Commission, that the appropriate committees will certainly include representatives of the professions concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52

RESTRICTED SALE, SUPPLY AND ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 44, line 3, at end insert:
(7) Before making any regulations under this section the appropriate Ministers shall consult the appropriate committee, or, if for the time being there is no such committee, shall consult the Commission.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 58

FURTHER POWERS TO REGULATE DEALINGS WITH MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

5.0 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 49, line 45, at end insert:
(c) the disposal of medicinal products which have become unusable or otherwise unwanted.
In response to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), in Committee, I undertook to consider whether the phrase, "safe keeping", mentioned in subsection (l)(b) of the Clause, included the disposal of medicines which were no longer required, particularly at what one might call the retail level, shops, pharmacies, hospitals and clinics. I think that what my hon. Friend had in mind was surplus or abandoned stock.
On reflection, I think that it would be desirable to make a provision to deal with this kind of thing. The wording we have tabled would enable a regulation to be made requiring the disposal under safe conditions of medicinal products no longer required by their owners, but it would not enable the enforcing authority to declare medicinal products unusable or unwanted or to sequester them and dispose of them. The provision is wide enough to enable requirements to be prescribed in relation to any premises where medicinal products are kept, including manufacturers' and wholesalers' premises, but I imagine that it is less likely to be used in relation to the latter two groups of premises.

Mr. Ogden: I thank my right hon. Friend for the consideration he has given


to this matter and for accepting the point of view put to him in Committee. I said in Committee that my right hon. Friend seemed to be more prone to accepting Amendments tabled by the Opposition than he was to accepting Amendments tabled by his hon. Friends, doubtless because he could rely rather more on our support than he could on the support of Opposition Members. Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: When the Amendment is made, will subsection (2)(a) apply to these regulations? I take it that it must. If we are talking about the disposal of medicinal products, as we shall be, it is vital that the way they are disposed of down drains should be safeguarded. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will know that in Kent we had the case of the disposal of refuse of a very poisonous substance which did great damage.

Mrs. Knight: I seek a little clarification as to what "disposal" in this context means. In some contexts "disposal" can mean "sale". Because of the generally loose wording, this is not as clear as it could be.

Mr. K. Robinson: We have used"disposal" because it is the widest possible word. The hon. Lady can rest assured that regulations prescribing the manner of disposal will not include the sale of unusable products. The answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) is that the whole purpose of making regulations is to ensure that the manner of disposal takes account of the public safety.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Michael English: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 50, line 14, after "under" insert "subsection (1) of".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment the House can discuss Amendment No. 70, in line 18, at beginning insert "any part of the".

Mr. English: The object of this somewhat technical Amendment, and of Amendment No. 70, which is an alternative to it, is to limit the power of the Ministers to make regulations under this Clause. The problem was discussed at

some length in Committee. Opposition Members moved an Amendment to delete "lay-out" from subsection (2). I attempted to amend the Clause.
The problem is caused by the wording of subsection (2), which seems to imply not merely that the Ministers may make regulations on the lines of the matters mentioned in subsection (1), but also, for example, with regard to the whole layout of premises in some part of which pharmaceutical or medicinal products may be sold. This power seems rather excessive.
The problem is exacerbated by statements being made by or on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Society at the moment. I want to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to deny these statements. Since 23rd June, 1966 to 29th May of this year there has been under appeal a case between the Pharmaceutical Society and one of its members who was also a director of the pharmaceutical firm of Boots. The judge of first instance decided that the society was attempting to regulate its members in such a way as to be in restraint of trade; he held that it was an unreasonable restraint of trade.
The view taken by the judge of first instance was upheld by the Court of Appeal. During the course of the Committee stage of the Bill—on 29th May— the Court of Appeal decision was unanimously upheld by all five members sitting on the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.
The first comments of the Society on this subject are highly interesting and, by implication, make a serious charge against the Ministry. The first comments were these:
In a sense, the Dickson case has been overtaken by events in the shape of the Medicines Bill. And the question that must come to mind is whether the Medicines Bill would have had the shape it has but for the case.
The implication by whoever wrote this anonymous article in the Pharmaceutical Journal of 1st June, 1968 seems to be that the Ministry drafted the Bill with the precise object of giving itself power to reverse what it felt might be the decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the previous decisions of lower courts taken before the Bill was introduced. I personally


do not believe that this charge is true, but I give my right hon. Friend the opportunity to deny it specifically. I do not think that the charge is true for the simple reason that I think that this subsection is largely drafted almost as a copy of Section 13(2) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. For that reason, I do not share the view expressed by the Pharmaceutical Society.
The society, in a further article in the Pharmaceutical Journal of 8th June, said:
Although the motion"—
that is, the motion in the Dickson case—
was thrown out and is now a dead letter, the problems with which it sought to deal remain. Although their Lordships refused to consider them in detail, they are apparent enough to most pharmacists … More important, they are also apparent to the Government …
My right hon. Friend ought, in the context of these Amendments, one or other of which I hope that he will accept, to make it clear that his objects are those of safety and not those of the society, the instinct of the society being to restrain trade in favour of its individual chemist membership. In another place a specific proviso should be inserted by my right hon. Friend so that the Clause cannot be used to further this internecine argument in the retail section of the pharmaceutical industry. The alternative would be for my right hon. Friend to give a specific assurance here as to the purposes for which he intends to make use of this power.
Statements of this character have been made. From conversation, I imagine that there may be a belief, though inaccurate, that the Ministry might use its powers to that end. What the Pharmaceutical Society desires is to limit as far as possible the trading of its members and to divide off the premises of pharmacies from the premises selling other items.
In that context, it was said in the same article of 8th June:
It ought to be remembered, though it would not be surprising if it had been lost sight of, that the precipitating factor in the Albert Hall motion"—
that is, the motion of the Pharmaceutical Society which was subsequently overruled in the courts—
was the inclusion of pharmacy in the American type of shopping 'super centre'

which the Society, and no doubt most of its members, felt was an unsatisfactory environment for pharmaceutical practice.
There is an important point here. If retail pharmacy were restricted to the premises of individual pharmacies dissociated from shopping centres, from shops or from anything else, as implied in the society's statements, first, this would be contrary to all the trends of modern society and modern planning, trends caused partly by the spread of car ownership and partly by other factors which are familiar to all hon. Members, and, second, the result would be far fewer pharmacies.
As any town planner knows, pharmacy on its own requires an enormous number of people per shop, as it were— far more than any other type of retail business. The service to the public would be restricted. It might well be highly profitable to the individual pharmacists —the prime reason for their interest—but it would be highly restrictive of services to meet the needs of consumers, who want retail pharmacies near at hand so that they may rush out in time of illness and buy pharmaceutical products.
I submit the Amendments for those reasons. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept one of them, and, also, that he will make clear that the object of the powers which he seeks here is safety, not to provide means whereby a professional society desiring to restrain trade could achieve its object, contrary to the decision of the courts.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). From a reading of the Clause, it seems to me that the Ministry has taken a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide for better control of potentially dangerous pharmaceutical products, a purpose which we all support, and, no doubt, under the regime to be instituted under the Bill, there must be proper supervision. However, as the Clause now stands, there is a danger that pharmacies, and other outlets, too, would be severely hampered.
If the Ministry were to go the whole hog and introduce regulations controlling building and the host of other matters covered by the Clause, there could be a serious effect on trading in goods other


than purely pharmaceutical or proprietary medicines. If fully implemented, such a power could put a burden on retailers. I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again and accept one of these Amendments.

Mr. Richard: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) went very wide of the precise terms of his Amendments. If he chooses, in the course of moving a specific and limited Amendment, to make an unprovoked attack on the Pharmaceutical Society, that is a matter for him, and no doubt he takes responsibility for what he says in the House.
On behalf of the Pharmaceutical Society, I take up one point which my hon. Friend raised. He said that the primary aim of the society was to restrict trade in the interests of the profitability of its members. I utterly reject that contention. The whole history of the Pharmaceutical Society, if he looked at the matter with anything like the objectivity which, perhaps, he ought to bring to it, ought to make my hon. Friend wish to withdraw the remark. We have in the Pharmaceutical Society a professional body which, under various Governments and Ministries, has been recognised as having long experience in administering the law relating to poisons and medicines since the very first Act was passed. It enforced the 1933 Act effectively, fairly and impartially. I feel that my hon. Friend ought to withdraw what I can only describe as his scurrilous comments.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. English: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that I related my remarks to the society's action on the motion to which I referred, which was denied by the courts, not to its other activities.

Mr. Richard: In that case, I take it that the offensiveness of my hon. Friend's remarks was in no way related to the society generally, but was merely part of an attempt to persuade the House that a specific act of the society should not have been taken. My hon. Friend, therefore, withdraws the general imputation which he made against the Society.

Mr. Snow: I shall not intervene between my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). Essentially,

the latter part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West raised a matter which will have to be decided some day, one way or another, as between the Pharmaceutical Society and its members, and I do not think that it is right for us to intervene in it.
My hon. Friend used the expression to which the society took some exception, referring to the concept of a "super-sales centre". A few years ago, a somewhat different American phrase was being used, "frontier pharmacies". But, be that as it may, we know what arrangements are in the retail distributive pattern, and I think that I should leave it at that.
I can tell my hon. Friend straight away that the Government intend to accept Amendment No. 69. I am advised that it makes no change in the meaning at law and that regulations cannot be made independently under subsection (2), but, if the Amendment will help anybody— by "anybody" I mean people other than lawyers—it has some merit, and we propose, therefore, to accept it.
My right hon. Friend is not able to accept Amendment No. 70. In the discussion in Committee on 2nd May, one technical point was not raised. The general ambit of the regulation-making power under the Clause is set out in subsection (1), which lists the substantive purposes for which regulations can be made. The items covered by subsection (2), therefore, are to be regarded as falling within the scope of subsection (1). I am advised that a regulation could not be made about, say, construction or about layout, except in relation to one or more of the matters—for example, paragraph (f)—in subsection (1).
It is, therefore, only partly true that one could under this Clause regulate the layout of the whole of a store selling pharmaceutical products in one small part. It is true only in so far as regulation of layout elsewhere is relevant to one of the purposes set out in subsection (1) in relation to medicinal products. In the example I mentioned just now, paragraph (f), the overriding purpose would be layout relevant to the safety, deterioration or contamination of medicinal products. In view of this interpretation of the subordinate place


of subsection (2) to subsection(1), I think that my hon. Friend will accept the reasoning behind our being unable to accept the Amendment.
I assure him that in view of his constituency interests, notwithstanding the views expressed by the Pharmaceutical Journal, for which I cannot speak, these powers are not intended to have any bearing on the position of pharmacists as established by the House of Lords in the recent case which he mentioned of Dickson v. the Pharmaceutical Society.
I hope that the House will agree to the first Amendment, and that my hon. Friend will accept that we cannot agree with the second.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59

OFFENCES UNDER PART III

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 50, line 31, leave out 'and liable' and insert:
(3) Where a medicinal product is sold, supplied or imported in contravention of an order made under section 54 of this Act, any person who, otherwise than for the purpose of performing or exercising a duty or power imposed or conferred by or under this Act or any other enactment, is in possession of the medicinal product knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it was sold, supplied or imported in contravention of the order shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section shall be liable.
I was well on the way to moving the Amendment when we were on an Amendment to Clause 39, but Mr. Speaker, ably assisted by the Opposition, pulled me up rather sharply.
The Amendment introduces a possession offence similar to that already made to Clause 39, but in relation to medicinal products sold, supplied or imported in contravention of an Order made under Clause 54, which deals with prohibition of sale, supply, and so on.
Officers of an enforcement authority, in the normal course of making their inspections, may find a product that does not comply with the requirements of an Order under Clause 54. If such a product

has, for example, been illegally imported it is right that the enforcement authority should be able to take action by making possession of such a product an offence. This would be particularly important, for example, if there was a total ban on a product.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the Amendment.
We do not need to go over the entire ground of the anxiety of Members on both sides of the House to see that the illegal import of drugs of low standard is stopped. It was clear from our debate on Thursday that policing will be very ineffective. As the hon. Gentleman said, it will be effective only if the improper drugs happen to be found on a farm, in the possession of a firm, or elsewhere being sold or stored. It would be purely fortuitous if this happened.
Much tighter control should be imposed by the Minister to stop the not inextensive trade which is going on at present, with importation not only from Eire and Northern Ireland but from Italy and elsewhere of sub-standard drugs. I know only of the veterinary drugs, but I believe that this happens on the human side as well.
I hope that the Minister will use his best endeavours to see that a much more effective method of policing this is set up within his Ministry and that of his right hon. Friend, using his own special branch investigators if need be. We must stop this trade as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ogden: Time and time again in his remarks during the past week on this and similar issues the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has spoken about Eire and Northern Ireland and the importation of drugs.
In view of the way in which this is construed outside, and of my constituency interests in the city and Port of Liverpool, I should not like it to be thought that anything said last week or today suggested that Liverpool is now becoming a sort of Tangier of the North-West, and that we are having imports of hard drugs such as hashish, cannabis, and so on, simply because Eire and Northern Ireland have been mentioned.
Liverpool is the principal port for trade between them and this country, and I should like to make it clear that we are


talking not about the Sunday newspaper kind of hard drugs, but medicinal products.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I can assure the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that the trade is not purely with Eire. There are flourishing pirate pharmaceutical companies who import material from Italy and other parts of the Continent and also from behind the Iron Curtain. Much of this is sub-standard, and it causes a tremendous amount of worry to the reputable pharmaceutical industry, with which I am proud to be associated in a professional capacity. The pirate companies are very hard to catch.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) in his plea for even stronger powers for the Ministry to do something about the pirate firms. At present, they are still marketing large amounts of pharmaceutical products which prove to be substandard when examined. I do not believe that the Bill will be strong enough to catch them and run them all out of business. It is very much in the interests of the public and reputable pharmaceutical industry that much more concerted attacks should be made on the pirate companies by the Ministry of Health. I hope that the Minister will address himself to this after the passage of the Bill.

Mr. John Mackie: I do not think that I should take part in the Derby County and Derby town quarrel about Liverpool. I appreciate the points made about substandard drugs coming in, but the Amendment is simply to deal with drugs found in the possession of a person, probably fortuitously found by an inspector on other duties, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamingon (Mr. Dudley Smith) does not think that the Bill as a whole is strong enough, but throughout the Bill there are powers to try to deal with this problem. Time will tell if it will. Hon. Members opposite put down an Amendment which would have stopped all drug imports, which we felt was overdoing it. But we take cognisance of the points made. One of the aims of the Bill is to stop trade in sub-standard or dangerous drugs.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62

BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY INDIVIDUAL PHARMACIST OR BY PARTNERS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment selected is Government Amendment No. 72, with which we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 53, line 19, at beginning insert 'Subject to the next following subsection'.
I hope that the House will allow me to give a small verbal picture of what is behind the Amendment rather than reading out the strict interpretation and enumerating the paragraphs.
My right hon. Friend undertook, in Committee, to make certain Amendments in response to an appeal by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) on the question of the certificates to be shown in premises or pharmacies. As the Bill was then drafted, it could have resulted in a multiplicity of certificates of authority being placed in any pharmacy which was operated by one pharmacist. We have endeavoured by the Amendments to satisfy my hon. Friend so as to provide for a certificate or certificates to be shown only in so far as the partner or partners exercise personal control at the premises in question.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 73, in page 53, line 28, leave out from 'person' to 'carrying' in line 29.

No. 74, in line 31, leave out from 'registration' to 'or' in line 33.

No. 75, in line 35, at end insert:
(2) In relation to a business carried on by a partnership the preceding subsection shall have effect as if—

(a) in paragraph (a) of that subsection, for the word 'person', there were substituted the words ' one or more of the partners', and
(b) in paragraph (b) of that subsection, for the words 'his name and certificate of registration', there were substituted the words' the name and certificate of registration of the partner (or, if more than one, of each partner) exercising personal control at those premises as mentioned in the preceding paragraph '.—[Mr. Snow.]

Clause 76

OFFENCES UNDER PART IV

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 76, with which we may discuss Government Amendment No. 92.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 66, line 31, after 'Act' insert:
'or who contravenes any regulations made under section 71(2) of this Act'.
The Amendments are designed to correct an omission which we noticed during the Committee stage, namely, that the Bill did not provide for an offence for contravening regulations under Clause 71(2) imposing further restrictions or other requirements with respect to the use of titles, descriptions and emblems associated with pharmacies and pharmaceutical practice. Amendment No. 76 remedies the omission and applies the same penalty, a fine of up to £100, as is applicable to contraventions of Clause 70.
Amendment No. 92 makes the Pharmaceutical Society the enforcing authority for contravention, as it already is under the Bill for contraventions of Clause 70.

Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard: I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 66, line 33, at end insert:
(3) Save as provided by subsections (1) and (2) of this section, any person who is a body corporate which carries on a retail pharmacy business otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
I am grateful for the opportunity of moving this Amendment, particularly since a similar Amendment in almost identical form appeared on the Notice Paper last Thursday, but was, unfortunately, out of order. This goes slightly further than the Amendment which was moved by my right hon. Friend to Clause 76. It makes the carrying on of a retail pharmacy business, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Measure an offence, liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
May I tell the House what is behind this Amendment? Under the 1933 Pharmacy and Poisons Act, Sections 8,

9 and 10 set out conditions precedent for authorised sellers of poison. The provisions of these Sections have been repeated, with minor changes, in Clauses 62, 63 and 64 of this Bill. The trouble is that Sections 8, 9 and 10 of that Act contained a rather large omission which has now been perpetuated in this Bill.
What was omitted was any penal sanction at all to ensure the continued observance of the conditions after registration in relation to the general conduct of the business. Unless a poison could be purchased in the absence of the pharmacist, which was contrary to Section 18 of the Act, no proceedings could be taken either for failure to keep the business under the personal control of the pharmacist, or even failure to appoint a superintendent when the holder of that post leaves the company.
This type of circumstance ought to be covered by some enforcement provision. Since the omissions of the 1933 Act, which has made enforcement extremely difficult, has been perpetuated in the Bill, it will mean that its enforcement will be that much more difficult. May I give two examples of the sort of situations which ought to be covered but which are not.
One instance of which I have been given details concerns a pharmacy which was registered in April, 1963 by a limited company of which there were two directors, neither a pharmacist. There was a superintendent, but he was not a member of the board. In March, 1966, the superintendent alleged that the directors were keeping the pharmacy open when neither he nor any other pharmacist was present. There were two visits by an inspector and correspondence ensued. On 30th July, 1966, the superintendent left the company, and a form for notification of the appointment of a superintendent was sent to the company, with two letters of reminder following up the formal notice.
In August, 1966, a company director telephoned the Pharmaceutical Society to say that he was complying with the law, as he had a locum. There was additional correspondence which showed that he was not complying with the law. In October, 1966, there was a special visit by an inspector, and in November, 1966, a new pharmacist was appointed. Although there was no further difficulty,


there had been no superintendent for that business from 30th July until 9th November, 1966, and there was nothing that anyone could do about it because of the absence of some such provision as is set out in my Amendment.
One other example is even more apposite. On 1st November, 1966, a pharmacy was registered by a limited company. In February, 1967, there was a complaint, and an inspector visited it. He ascertained that the pharmacist was never present on Saturdays, although the pharmacy remained open. In March, 1967, there was a letter to the superintenddent advising him that this did not meet legal requirements. There was more correspondence and more visits and the matter was left unresolved.
In June, 1967, the inspector again learned that the business was open on Saturday afternoon, with no pharmacist present. It was not until 1st July, 1967, that an agent was able to purchase two Part I poisons which brought the Act into force. If it had not been for the purchase of these poisons the problem would have been left unresolved, and the most unsatisfactory situation would have continued, to the disadvantage of the public.
I have another example, in which a director of a company insisted on opening a business without a pharmacist being present. Again, nothing could be done until the provisions of the 1933 Act were brought into force. Had it been possible to take proceedings quickly for non-compliance with the basic requirements of the Act, this situation would, and could, have been dealt with much more quickly. It is this omission which is perpetuated in the Bill, and which my Amendment is designed to cover.

Mr. Snow: I have listened with some sympathy to the careful presentation of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I cannot find fault with the evidence that he has produced. My only real concern is about the strict interpretation, for instance, by the Pharmaceutical Society of the existing law, in the case that I think he may have been referring to when asking for an alteration to the Bill. This is largely a question of whether such an Amendment is apposite to this sort of Bill which follows the same principles, as my hon. Friend has said, of the Pharmacy and

Poisons Act, 1933. Whatever merit this proposal may have on its own, it seems that in the context of the Bill it would be out of place.
There may well be arguments for suggesting that a pharmacist ought simply, as a pharmacist, to organise his business in a particular way prescribed by law. But this is not the approach of existing legislation or of this Bill. Under existing legislation such a principle has not been followed. At present, the statutory control of the pharmacist's business is related to his sales of poisons. Under the Bill, control is likewise related to the conditions on which medicinal products are sold.
It would represent a fundamental departure from the present conception if we were to make the conditions for the lawful conduct of a pharmacy business enforceable in themselves. It would be a discriminatory departure too, which it would be hard to justify, if this change were to be made, as the Amendment proposes, only in the case of bodies corporate and it were not to apply to individual pharmacists or partnerships.
As the Bill stands, where something can be done only by a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business, for example, the sale of medicinal products not on the general sale list, there will be an offence which can be directly prosecuted if that act is done by a person including a body corporate, which is carrying on his business in such a way that he is not a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business within the meaning of Clause 61.
The practical effect of the Amendment would seem to be to extend the possibility of prosecution, in the case of bodies corporate, to cases where there is no evidence that an act otherwise forbidden by the Bill had been committed, or where the act in question was one which was not restricted to persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business, for example, selling general sale list products. My hon. Friend was on strong ground in wishing to perfect the enforcement position of the Pharmaceutical Society. The firm I think he had in mind in the first example was not an authorised seller of poisons during the period when it had no superintendent. It did not satisfy the conditions under


Section 9 of the 1933 Act, and there could have been a prosecution if a poison was sold.
This is a very complex matter. My main case is that what my hon. Friend is attempting to do does not conform with the general pattern either of the Pharmacy Act or this Bill, and in the circumstances I hope he will consider withdrawing his Amendment.

Mr. Ogden: There is one point on the matter of bodies corporate as distinct from persons or partners. The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that the Amendment is as near as my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and I have been able to get, with Amendment No. 77, to conforming as he said, but while he has moved some way, by Amendment No. 76, towards accepting the point of view, put forward in Committee, that it would be more appropriate to have offences for the majority of the cases under Part IV of the Bill than the one or two cases he has suggested, we suggest that it may be for him to consider whether there are more cases under Parts III and IV which should be offences.
My hon. Friend agreed there was some case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court, and as, during all the proceedings on the Bill, from Second Reading until now, he has accepted at later stages ideas put forward at earlier stages, he might have a look at this again, to see whether there is more in my hon. Friend's case, which he has accepted in part, for making an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Snow: I should be less than frank with my hon. Friend if I were to say that any further looking at this Amendment would result in our changing our mind. We have thought about this matter very carefully, and are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) for bringing it up so that is could be discussed.

Mr. Richard: I may return to the charge, if not on this Bill, perhaps on another occasion, but in view of what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 85

FALSE OR MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 73, line 37, to leave out from 'that' to 'did' in line 39 and insert:
'either—

(a) he received the advertisement for issue in the ordinary course of business and issued it, or arranged for it to be issued, either unaltered or without any alteration except in respect of lettering or lay-out, or
(b) not being a commercially interested party, he received from a commercially interested party the information on which the advertisement was based and in the ordinary course of business prepared the advertisement in accordance with that information for issue at the request of that party,

and (in either case) that he'.

Subsection (6) of Clause 85 provides a special defence of "ignorance", similar to the one which is at present provided by Section 6(3) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 for a person whose business it is to arrange for the issue of advertisements. Its point is that ordinary advertising media owners are not in a position to guarantee the accurancy of all the advertisements which are put to them for issue or publication, and it is right that the responsibility in this case should remain with the advertiser who supplies the material.
In the Standing Committee, on 9th May however, this defence, though admitted to be adequate for media owners such as newspapers, was criticised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) on the basis that nowadays advertising agencies normally work up the advertisement from material produced by the advertiser and do not simply put out material exactly as it is provided by the advertiser. He felt that the defence did not cover this, and pointed to the fact that the agency had a defence in cimilar circumstances in the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill.
My right hon. Friend has considered this criticism further in consultation with representatives of the Advertising Association and has concluded that it would be appropriate to amend subsection (6) to provide two separate defences, the first of which—that in, the proposed paragraph (a)—would be much the same as


Clause 85(6) now, and would apply where material supplied by the advertiser is issued without material change, and the other—in paragraph (b)—when the agency works up material supplied by the advertiser. In the first defence the criterion is essentially that the advertisement should correspond with the material supplied; in the second, that it should be consistent with such material.
I hope that, with this explanation of what my right hon. Friend has done to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Garston, the House will accept this Amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I feel that it is absolutely right that there should be additional safeguards for those working in the advertising industry and for media owners, because they undertake this work in good faith if they are reputable people, and they deserve this protection. The standards of advertising practice in the pharmaceutical industry and in the case of proprietary medicines is very high. Indeed, many of the provisions of the Bill will not be needed, for there are voluntary restraints, but it is right and proper that those responsible professionally for the preparation of advertisements and their accuracy should have adequate safeguards under the law, and I am sure that we shall welcome the Amendment.

Mr. Dean: I rise merely to thank the the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting the points which we made in Committee and for fulfilling the undertakings which he then gave.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 87

POWERS TO REGULATE ADVERTISEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 79 in page 76, line 41, to leave out 'and' and to insert 'to'.
This is consequential to Amendment No. 281 which was accepted by the Standing Committee on 14th May. On that occasion my right hon. Friend pointed out that as subsection (1,b) of what was then Clause 86 stood, the regulations could specify diseases and conditions for the treatment of which medicinal products in general were not to be advertised,

but they could not particularise as to any classes of medicinal products which were not to be advertised in this way.
That Amendment had the effect of splitting that paragraph (b) into two and although what was then paragraph (c) has been renumbered (d) it is now necessary to include in subsection (7) a reference to both parts of the old paragraph (b) now numbered (c) and (d).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 88

ADVERTISEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS DIRECTED TO PRACTITIONERS

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, Amendment No. 80, in page 77, line 25, to leave out 'in any way'.
This is an important little Amendment. The facts about it are well known to members of the Standing Committee on the Bill but, out of courtesy, I think I should explain to the House that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) moved an Amendment in Committee to insert a reference to the concept of "to a material extent" after the requirement in subsection (3,b) of Clause 88 that the advertisement or representation should not be
in any way inconsistent with the particulars contained in the data sheet.
On that occasion I accepted on behalf of my right hon. Friend that this provision might be interpreted rather too strictly and I suggested that instead of inserting a reference to "to a material extent" the words "in any way" should be deleted. The hon. Gentleman accepted that, and I undertook to move an Amendment to do that, and this I now do.

Mr. Fortescue: I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having done what he said he would do.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 96

APPLICATION OF ACT TO CERTAIN OTHER SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE NOT MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, Amendment No. 81, in page 83, line 26, at the end to insert:
'but excluding those substances specified in the Pesticide Safety Precaution Scheme'.


This Amendment arises directly out of our discussions in Standing Committee, and also our discussion of a new Clause which I moved last Thursday. I move this Amendment so that any misunderstanding may be cleared up and so that we may be quite clear exactly what Clause 96 is intended to do.
It is the Clause which allows the Minister to bring within the ambit of the Bill substances which are not medicinal products. In our discussions in Committee it because clear that substances which the right hon. Gentleman and also the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture had in mind included insecticides, herbicides and pesticides and it became clear that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had in mind that the substances within the ambit of the Bill are confined specifically to the insecticides.
We also heard in Committee that the Minister of Agriculture is thinking of introducing new legislation at some later stage concerning pesticides and the existing conditions relating to safety precautions which are at present operated under the voluntary scheme.
The purpose of the Amendment is to exclude from the ambit of the Bill all those substances mentioned in the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme. If the existing safety precautions scheme is adequate—and there is no dispute that it is not adequate—and is allowed to continue until the Minister brings in new legislation to cover this specific point, there will be no need to have these substances included under any provisions of Clause 96. The sole purpose is to exclude those substances coming under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme which will come under the proposed legislation. There are many other substances which the Minister may wish to bring in under some future Order under Clause 96, but this does not concern this narrow Amendment.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see fit to advise the House to accept the Amendment. There is no danger to public or to animal health and life in excluding those substances which are covered by the existing scheme. If the Parliamentary Secretary accepts this Amendment, he will go a long way to

allaying the worries and anxieties existing outside this House about the intentions of the Minister in using this Clause in future. A lot will hang on this. There are many people on the fringe of this industry manufacturing these substances who want to know what their future will be. Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see fit to advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Mackie: I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), because this Amendment is unacceptable. The substances dealt with in the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme are referred to by a rather broad general description which, although eminently satisfactory for the purpose of the voluntary scheme, would not be appropriate for the purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West has emphasised that my right hon. Friend is probably bringing in a new Bill to deal with pesticides, but this may take a while because Parliamentary business is fairly full at the moment. I do not know what will happen next Session. Therefore, we must cover the present situation.
As I explained during the Committee stage, if we were to use Clause 96(1)(b) to apply any provisions of the Bill to pesticides we would do so only for a very limited number of products. They would be the sort of pesticides at present dealt with under the Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme. This would not be possible if this Amendment were accepted, since the broad description of pesticides in the Pesticides Scheme would also cover such products.
It is not necessary in any case to attempt to find some way of adding this sort of qualification. I want to stress once and for all that we readily agree that this Bill is not the place to control pesticides—and this includes herbicides and insecticides, etc.—at present dealt with under the voluntary Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme rather than under the similar Veterinary Scheme. It is intended that the Pesticides Scheme should continue until such time as it might be replaced by any legislation dealing specifically with pesticides.
Under the Medicines Bill certain products which could be thought of as


pesticides, which are at present considered under the Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme, will be covered by the definition of medicinal products in Clause 116. Examples are sheep dips and warble fly dressings which are administered to the animals. We are agreed that these should be subject to the full provisions of the Bill.
On the other hand, some substances also at present considered under the Veterinary Scheme are not covered by the definition of medicinal product because they are not administered to the animals themselves. We have discussed this before. Nevertheless, we might find it appropriate to bring these within the ambit of the Bill if they meet the requirements of Clause 96(1)(b). But, as pesti-sides, they fall in the margin between the Veterinary and Pesticides Schemes.
These substances would be those manufactured, sold, supplied, etc. for a specific purpose where, by the nature of that purpose, it is clear that the substance concerned would be used in a confined space where animals would almost certainly come into contact with them—for instance, in a poultry house or dairy. An example would be a product for destroying red mite in poultry or cows where the application of the substance is not to the birds or to the cows but to the walls, etc. In these circumstances, a product licence, for instance, would be concerned only with the product manufactured, sold, etc. for the specific purpose concerned. As I have said, products of this sort are at present controlled under the Voluntary Veterinary Safety Precautions Scheme. This is not because they could be considered as being outside the broad description of substances which are covered by the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, but because it is appropriate that they should be considered by the committee of experts concerned with the Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme, and this is why it might also be found appropriate to deal with such products under this Clause.
Let me stress that it is only these kinds of products that we might control under this Clause. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, does not like the word "might". Nevertheless, we are saying that there are occasions on which some substances might need to be dealt with under the Clause.
I also want to make it quite clear that in an Order made under this Clause only those provisions of the Bill specified would apply to the substances concerned and, in addition, those provisions might be modified. How far the various provisions of the Bill might apply and to what extent they might need modification would have to be considered in relation to the particular substance or substances concerned.
I also want to emphasise that if a substance is manufactured in bulk and supplied in separate containers specifically for different purposes, the only product that we might be interested in would be the one which fell into the category I have already mentioned. A product licence, for instance, would then relate to that specific product. But if a substance is manufactured in bulk and not packed separately for specific purposes —for example, D.D.T.—we would not consider bringing such a substance under the control of this Bill unless the veterinary aspects far outweighed other considerations so that in present circumstances it might fall to be dealt with under the Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme. I would remind hon. Members of our starting point, that fundamentally the control of pesticides is a matter for the present Pesticides Scheme or, if necessary, its mandatory successor.
Finally, there are important safeguards, as I have pointed out to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West often enough. Before any Order is made there would have to be consultation with interested organisations and there will be the added safeguard of affirmative Resolution procedure for Clause 96(1)(b). I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Parliamentary Secretary has made. confusion worse confounded by his speech. I shall have to read it to be certain about what he said. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is a grey area between the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme and the Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme.
The hon. Gentleman wants to be certain, by having powers under Clause 96, of having control over all possible products at all times under the provisions


of the Bill, but with the proviso that he has no intention of controlling those which come under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme. I think that this is wrong. The hon. Gentleman is making the issue more complicated and difficult than it need be. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept my Amendment —and I will not argue whether I have drafted it correctly or not—he should bring in an Amendment in another place clearly setting out the area into which he has no intention of intruding by the Medicines Bill, because that area will be covered by the existing voluntary scheme and later by new legislation which I am sure he will persuade his colleagues to bring in at the next Session.
6.0 p.m.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has made things a little more difficult, and we are now more confused about how far he and his right hon. Friend intend to go at a later stage. I am, however, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that the alternative procedure will be available, and also for clearing up the confusion he created last Thursday when we discussed the new Clause about bulk manufacture. That matter has nothing to do with the Amendment, but I repeat that I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the confusion he created at our last Sitting.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 83, line 37 at end insert:
(3) No order shall be made under this section—

(a) in relation to a substance as being a substance in respect of which the condition specified in subsection (1)(b) of this section is fulfilled, or
(b) in relation to a class of substances as being substances in respect of which that condition is fulfilled,

unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

The Amendment, which applies the affirmative procedure to Orders made under subsection (l)(b), was foreshadowed by my hon. Friend a few moments ago. When we discussed this Clause in Committee, on an Amendment to apply the affirmative procedure to both subsections, I suggested that the case for the affirma-

tive Resolution procedure was much stronger in the case of subsection (1)(b) than it was for subsection (l)(a), and it was my impression that the Committee broadly agreed with that, but I promised to consider the matter again. I have done so, and I agree that it would be appropriate to apply the affirmative procedure to Orders made under subsection (1)(b).
I still think that annulment is sufficient for subsection (l)(a) Orders, because these will be made to bring ingredients used in manufacture within the scope of the Bill only when effective safeguards cannot be written into the product licence for the finished product, and this is something which we expect to be done very rarely indeed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 98

VALIDITY OF DECISIONS AND PROCEEDINGS RELATING THERETO

Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 84, line 17, after 'relates', insert:
'or a person whose interests may be affected by the decision'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 84, in page 84, line 25, after 'him', insert:
'or in the case of a person whose interests are affected by the decision, within six weeks of the time when he might reasonably be expected to know of the decision'.

Mr. Dean: The Clause provides a right of appeal to the High Court for someone whose interests are directly affected by the licensing authority, or by the Minister, in the case of registration of premises where the person concerned feels that the licensing authority or the Minister has acted outside the powers of the Act, as it will be, or the requirements of the Act and the regulations made under it. In other words, the Clause is not really concerned with whether the licensing authority has acted rightly on the merits of the case, but whether it has acted within or outside the terms of the Act.
As the Clause is drawn, a defence will be available only to the person to whom a decision relates. The object of the Amendments is to make the Clause


slightly wider so that this defence can be available to a person whose interests may be affected by the decision. We discussed the matter briefly in Committee, when the Minister made it clear that the people we had in mind were not covered by the Clause as drafted. For example, a commercial competitor might feel aggrieved at the grant of a licence to a rival firm, but he will have no redress. This is nothing to do with the merits of the case, but whether the Minister has acted ultra vires. In our view this defence should be open to a person whose interests may be affected by the decision, as well as being open to the person to whom the decision relates. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. K. Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman said, the object of these Amendments is to extend the range of persons entitled to question in the courts the vadility of decisions of the licensing authority. The hon. Gentleman said that the Amendments would make the Clause slightly wider. I question the use of the word "slightly". I think that the Amendments will make the Clause far too wide.
Under the Bill as drafted, only the person to whom the decision relates has any such rights. The first Amendment aims at allowing any person whose interests may be affected to challenge the validity of the decision. The consideration which we had in mind in drafting the Clause was to strike a balance. Obviously the person to whom the decision relates ought to have a right of appeal on a point of law, and the Bill provides for that, but if any person could challenge a decision made under the Bill by alleging that his interests are or could be affected in future that could create an impossible situation, particularly if it were abused. It could throw the whole of the licensing arrangements into disarray by placing the licensing authority, perhaps on the flimsiest of grounds, under the burden of having to defend before the High Court cases which were of little or no merit, or even vexacious.
Moreover, the holder of the licence which was being challenged might not be a party to the proceedings, yet, if the Amendment were accepted, a court could suspend the operation of the decision. All this would mean time and expense for the licensing authority, the applicant, and

everyone else. Though I should not want to suggest that such considerations are any ground for refusing a right to apply to the court on a point of law where a person is directly affected, I think that we should think carefully before we give a right to impugn a decision to an ill-defined range of persons who are not directly concerned.
Perhaps I can give the House an example. The hon. Gentleman mentioned competitors. Let us suppose that applicant A has been granted a licence on conditions which his competitor B thinks are less onerous than those which apply to his product. On the hon. Gentleman's argument, competitor B ought to be able to challenge the decision, but surely what he ought to do in those circumstances is to say, "The licensing authority obviously does not now require such onerous conditions. I shall therefore apply for a variation Order." I suggest that we should not enable a person to challenge on the ground that his interests could be affected by the mere granting of a licence to a competitor. After all, if there were no licensing scheme in existence there would be no ground for legal proceedings in a situation like that.
I shall not go into detail about the wording of the Amendments, except to say that the first one talks about a person whose interests may be affected, which implies that they are not affected by the decision, whereas the second talks about a person whose interests are affected, and on that basis he would have to wait until they had been affected before he could apply to the court.
I think that the whole of this proposal, by comparison with a number of other Amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman, is somewhat ill-considered, and I ask the House to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 99

ENFORCEMENT IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 85, line 8, leave out from 'to' to 'of in line 11 and insert:


(a) the provisions of section 55(b), sections 56 and 57, subsections (3) to (5) of section 77 and sections 79(2), 80(3) and 81(2) of this Act, in the application of any of those provisions to


the retail sale, offer or exposure for retail sale, or possession for the purpose of retail sale, of medicinal products and to the supply, offer or exposure for supply, or possession for the purpose of supply, of medicinal products in circumstances corresponding to retail sale;
(b) the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 78 of this Act, in their application to the supply, or possession for the purpose of supply, of leaflets with medicinal products sold or to be sold by retail, or supplied in circumstances corresponding to retail sale; and
(c) the provisions of sections 85 and 86.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments Nos. 86 to 89, and 94 to 100.

Mr. K. Robinson: The five Government Amendments on page 85 amend subsection (2) so as to limit the scope of the functions that can be conferred on the Pharmaceutical Society and the food and drugs authorities by directions or arrangements given or made by the appropriate Minister. The Amendments are on the lines described by my hon. Friend during the discussions in Committee in reply to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). In the course of drafting the Amendments we took the opportunity to set out more fully the aspects of the Clauses mentioned which are relevant to the directions or arrangements.
The broad effect of these Amendments is that in relation to composition, mis-description and contraventions relating to labelling, leaflets, containers, marking and information on automatic machines, neither the Pharmaceutical Society nor food and drugs authorities could be given enforcement functions in relation to the manufacturing and wholesale levels, but only at retail level. Also, in relation to advertisements and representations, the Pharmaceutical Society could be given enforcement powers only where they are issued, displayed or made at premises or places where products are sold by retail or are displayed on or near automatic machines.
This series of Amendments meets the objective of Amendment No. 94 in the names of hon. Members opposite, which I think was a paraphrase of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member in Standing Committee.

Mr. Fortescue: While preferring our own Amendment No. 94, we give a luke-

warm welcome to this series of very complicated Amendments which the Minister has put down. We would point out that Amendment No. 86 appears to be the key to the situation, where the words:
to such extent as … the arrangements or directions may provide
are inserted. Those words are very wide and may mean anything at all. However, provided that those arrangements and directions are in the spirit of what the Minister has just said, we are happy about that, subject to our Amendment No. 93 which we will be discussing next with some other Amendments.
I have only one minor point, and that is that in all these Amendments there is constant reference to advertisements or representations. Representations are defined in the Bill as descriptions given by the spoken word, as opposed to advertisements which are descriptions given by the written word. We do not quite see how inspectors of the Pharmaceutical Society is expected to police or enforce the spoken word as between the pharmacist and the patient, or as between the doctor and the pharmacist. Eavesdropping is certainly not in the Minister's mind, I am sure. We would like to see "representations" taken out at a later stage, and perhaps a little more thought could be given to that.

Mr. Robinson: It is a useful reserve point to have in. I will certainly consider the point which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 86, in page 85, line 16, at end insert:
'to such extent as, in the case of that Society or authority, the arrangements or directions may provide'.

No. 87, in page 85, line 17, leave out '(a)'.

No. 88, in page 85, line 19, leave out '(b)'.

No. 89, in page 85, line 20, leave out from 'enforce' to end of line 21 and insert—
the provisions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) f this subsection, in their application as mentioned in those paragraphs, and the provisions and regulations specified in paragraph c) f this subsection.
(3) Any arrangements made with, or directions given to, the Pharmaceutical Society,


under subsection (2) of this section, in so far as they relate to the provisions specified in paragraph (c) of that subsection, shall be limited to the enforcement of those provisions in respect of—

(a) any advertisement issued or representation made on or in any premises, ship, aircraft, vehicle, stall or place where medicinal products are sold by retail or are supplied in circumstances corresponding to retail sale, and
(b) any advertisement displayed on, or in close proximity to, an automatic machine in which medicinal products are offered or exposed for sale.'—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move, Amendment No. 90, in page 85, line 30, leave out from 'pharmacies' to end of line 32.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, I suggest it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 91, in page 85, line 39, leave out from ' Wales' to end of line 42, and Amendment No. 93, in page 86, line 44, at end insert:
(9) Notwithstanding any provisions in this section of this Act, the Pharmaceutical Society shall not have the authority to enforce the provisions of the Act and any regulations made under this Act with regard to the retail sale of medicinal products on the general sales list other than the retail sale of medicinal products on the general sales list in registered pharmacies.

Mrs. Butler: These Amendments relate to subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 99, in which powers and duties are laid on the Pharmaceutical Society to enforce the regulations in Clause 58 with regard to the preparation, dispensing, safekeeping and other functions concerned with the sale of medicinal products on the general sale list.
The important thing about the provisions in Clause 99 is that it is not only in registered pharmacies that the Pharmaceutical Society will have these powers of enforcement; the inspectors of the Pharmaceutical Society will also have powers of enforcement with regard to products on the general sale list in village stores, to which particular reference was made in discussions during the Committee stage, in general stores in towns, co-operative shops, supermarkets, herbalists and health food stores, in fact in any kind of shop which sells products on the general sale list.
While I think everybody is agreed that it is perfectly right for the Pharmaceutical

Society to have these powers with regard to registered pharmacists, there is considerable concern about their extended powers under the Bill. When the matter was under discussion during the Committee stage, it was pointed out that the food and drugs inspectors already have the right and the duty of entering these shops to enforce their regulations, and that it would be more appropriate for them to carry out these duties under Clause 99. The effect of the two Amendments taken together is to give the power to the food and drugs authorities.
6.15 p.m.
The position under the Bill is that the inspectors of the Pharmaceutical Society have certain powers, and also there are the traditional powers of the food and drugs inspectors, and in this Clause the Minister has come down in favour of the Pharmaceutical Society inspectors. I find it very difficult to accept this decision. With the importance that is attached in the Bill to the general sale list—it is conceded on all sides that it is an important provision—there is something to be said for setting up a special inspectorate concerned with the operation. This is not what I am asking for. I am asking that the inspectorate enforcing these provisions should be completely objective in its enforcement of the regulations.
The Pharmaceutical Society, quite rightly from its point of view, is on record as wishing to confine the sale of medicines to registered pharmacies. This has caused considerable alarm among the proprietors of shops which will be selling medicines on the general sale list. They feel, rightly or wrongly, that there may be bias on the part of Pharmaceutical Society inspectors. Quite apart from this, it was pointed out in Committee that there are only 15 inspectors of the Pharmaceutical Society, and they will find it extremely difficult to carry out their duties. I am concerned about the danger that they may not be seen to be objective.
Apart from sales in stores and in shops generally, some of the products sold by health food stores and herbalists will also be on the general sale list, and they feel particular concern about inspectors of the Pharmaceutical Society vetting their product. They recognise, as we all


must, that the inspectors of the Pharmaceutical Society will have no knowledge whatever of herbal products which may be on the general sale list. My right hon. Friend might argue that neither will the food and drugs inspectors, but there is not the same danger of bias on the part of food and drug inspectors as there might be with Pharmaceutical Society inspectors.
My right hon. Friend said in Committee that he would look at this point again, and the Committee were hopeful that he would bring in Amendments on these lines. It may be that he has an intention of doing something of this kind in another place but, if he has no such intention, I would urge upon him that he should look again at this point. It is a point of considerable importance which will become increasingly important as the provisions of the Bill become known. As more people become aware of the situation, he will probably receive many representations from all types of retailers about these provisions. I am not suggesting that he should be intimidated by such representations, but it is a point of considerable public importance and I would therefore ask him, if he will, to accept the Amendment, or to give an assurance that he will do something in another place to meet the point at issue.

Mr. Fortescue: I wish to support very strongly everything said by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). But, although we welcome her Amendment, we do not think that it goes far enough, and we prefer our own Amendment, No. 93.
The reasons are a little complex. If the hon. Lady's Amendment were accepted by the Minister, it would still leave paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) in subsection (4) and, under them, the Pharmaceutical Society would still have all sorts of rights quite foreign to the business of members of the society; for example, to enter premises which have nothing to do with members of the society. We have all paid tribute to the Pharmaceutical Society, but we on this side think that its activities should be confined to the premises and businesses of its own members.
In this regard, I might point out to the Minister that, when we made similar suggestions in Committee, he gave as justification for the inspectors of the Pharmaceutical Society being allowed to enter shops where goods on the general sales list were sold:
The fact is that the Pharmaceutical Society's inspectors already have a duty, and powers, to enter non-pharmacy premises in order to enforce Clause 43 of this Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 23rd May, 1968; c. 806.]
That is now Clause 45 in the revised numbering. We accepted that at the time, perhaps wrongly. On an examination of the Bill, it appears that the Pharmaceutical Society's inspectors do not have that power. The Minister's statement was not accurate. I am sure that it was quite inadvertent, but he gave that as his reason for not accepting our Amendment. The inspectors have no such power under the Bill and, therefore, the Minister's arguments in Committee refuting our Amendment were wrong. As a result, I hope that he will now accept our Amendment, the second time round, because his reason for refuting it has been destroyed.

Mr. Richard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) for moving this Amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to try to put at rest some of the fears which have been expressed and get the matter in perspective.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Gar-ston (Mr. Fortescue) quoted from our proceedings in Committee. Having looked at it again, I am sure that he will concede that the reason given by my right hon. Friend in regard to Clause 43, now Clause 45, was not the only reason that he had for rejecting the Amendment.
It is right to draw attention to the possibility of bias in the enforcement of these regulations by the society, but it is also right to get the whole matter in perspective. We are dealing here with medicines and, whether they are sold by pharmacies or by other shops, the regulations dealing with them are essentially pharmaceutical matters, and the Pharmaceutical Society is the best body to deal with these matters, if only to ensure that the standards are enforced uniformly throughout the country.
May I make one or two comments about the society's method of enforcement? It can reasonably be claimed that the inspectorate of the society is as independent of the society's Council as a police force is of its watch committee. The appointment of inspectors is subject to Privy Council approval. The society's committee which deals with their reports is advised by an experienced solicitor, and the secretary and registrar and the chief inspector, although not practising lawyers, are all members of the Bar.
The society's present duties of enforcement require it to ensure that Part I poisons are not sold except under the supervision of a pharmacist in a pharmacy. This entails inspectors and agents checking on ordinary shops which sell medicines. In 1967, over 12,000 premises owned by chemists were visited, compared with 5,000 ordinary shops. Those figures do not support the expressed fear that the society's inspectors tend to concentrate on small traders and perhaps neglect pharmacies.
Under the 1933 Act, local authorities are required to maintain a list of sellers of Part II poisons and inspect their premises. Many authorities have chosen quite deliberately to have this work done by the society's inspectors until they appoint local staff, and some arrangements have been running for as long as 30 years. There has never been a complaint by a local authority about the society's inspectors. They are wholly independent and show no bias. Many other authorities have consulted the society's inspectors on a number of problems.
It is important that these matters are put in perspective. The inspectorate of the Pharmaceutical Society is highly skilled, highly competent and highly trained. Its members know a great deal about the subject, and should be allowed to get on with their job.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Surely the point at issue is that the Pharmaceutical Society has a vested interest. The case was well made out by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). There is something unpalatable about the society having supervisory powers over non-pharmacy outlets. When the general sales list comes into being, there could be serious areas of contention, and, if there is resentment on the part of some

traders, we shall be building up trouble. It is far better to have an independent force doing the supervising.

Mr. Ogden: I hope that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) are not suggesting that the Pharmaceutical Society operates as a sort of MI.55. When they use the words, "powers of the Pharmaceutical Society", they might as well use the other words,
the enforcement duties laid upon the Pharmaceutical Society by various Acts of Parliament.
I was intrigued by the latter point put forward by my hon. Friend when she spoke about a special inspectorate. This is a point which might be considered seriously. I have checked on the number of enforcement officers who, in law, can go into a pharmacy or shop selling medicinal products. There are eight different types of inspector, ranging from health inspectors, Shops Act inspectors, factory inspectors and safety regulations inspectors. It seems that any inspector is entitled to go into a pharmacy.
This might be the basis for a consideration of the kind of inspectorate that we have, so meeting some of my hon. Friend's points, without the extreme example of the suggestion that there is an MI.55 operating.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Amendments seek to remove from the Pharmaceutical Society the duty of enforcing regulations under Section 58 at premises and places other than registered pharmacies.
When we discussed the enforcement rôle of the Pharmaceutical Society in Standing Committee, I offered, without commitment, to consider whether and to what extent food and drugs authorities should be brought into these enforcement functions.
Any question of redistribution of enforcement functions involves the considered examination and ascertainment of the views of the enforcement authorities affected or likely to be affected. Although I have given some consideration to this and have had an expression of view from certain sources, there has been insufficient time since 23rd May to reach a considered view. However, I will repeat my assurance that I will look into the matters involved and, if it


appears that the provision in the Bill should be amended, I will arrange for Amendments to be moved at an appropriate stage in another place. On the other hand, if I come to the conclusion that no change should be made, I will let my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) know, so that, if they wish to press their points, they can secure that they are discussed in another place.
In any case, I could not advise the House to accept the Amendments now on the Notice Paper. The first one, in the name of my hon. Friend, would make it the duty of local authorities— county borough, borough, urban and rural district councils—to enforce all the regulations under Section 58 elsewhere than at registered pharmacies. These are not in general the food and drugs authorities, and I doubt if they would be the appropriate authorities to enforce these matters.
Whatever we may do ultimately about the possibility of bringing in the food and drugs authorities, I must advise the House against making this a function of the local authorities, who would be the authorities if my hon. Friends Amendment were accepted, since they are the ones responsible for what I might call

the purely sanitary requirements such as those in Clause 58(1)(f) and (g).

6.30 p.m.

The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston goes very much wider. It would exclude the Society from enforcing any provisions in the Bill, or any regulations, in relation to the retail sale of medicinal products on the general sale list except at registered pharmacies. He suggested that one of the arguments that I put forward was somewhat misleading. I can assure him that under Clause 99(4)(b) the Pharmaceutical Society must enforce Clause 44, which deals with the sale or supply of medicinal products restricted to pharmacies, and that under Clause 102 various officers have the right of entry in order to ascertain whether there has been a contravention.

On reflection the hon. Member will probably feel that I did not mislead him. Certainly I do not think that his Amendment should be accepted. I say that, however, without prejudice to the promise that I have given that I shall pursue my consultations and examination of the possibility of bringing in the proper food and drugs authorities.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 115. Noes 159.

Division No. 230.]
AYES
[6.31 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley


Batsford, Brian
Grant-Ferris, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maude, Angus


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Boyte, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B.
Murton, Oscar


Clark, Henry
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cordle, John
Hunt, John
Noble, Rt, Hn. Michael


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Iremonger, T. L.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Dance, James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peel, John


Doughty, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pink, R, Bonner


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Prior, J. M. L.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pym, Francis


Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Glyn, Sir Richard
Loveys, W. H.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas




Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Sharples, Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Silvester, Frederick
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John



Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Jasper More and


Speed, Keith
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Anthony Royle.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Weatherill, Bernard





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Henig, Stanley
Pavitt, Laurence


Alldritt, Walter
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Allen, Scholefield
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hoy, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hynd, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Beaney, Alan
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rankin, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Booth, Albert
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Richard, Ivor


Bradley, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roebuck, Roy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Lawson, George
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lee, John (Reading)
Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Edmund

Skeffington, Arthur


Dickens, James
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Dobson, Ray
McBride, Neil
Snow, Julian


Doig, Peter
MacDermot, Niall
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Eaelie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


English, Michael
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Ensor, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tinn, James


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Tuck, Raphael


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Ford, Ben
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Garrett, W. E.
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Murray, Albert
Whitaker, Ben


Gregory, Arnold
Newens, Stan
White, Mrs. Eirene


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Wilklns, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hannan, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Harper, Joseph
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Haseldine, Norman
Park, Trevor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hazell, Bert
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr, John McCann and




Mr. Harry Gourlay.

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 86, line 9 after 'Act', insert:
' and of any regulations made under section 71(2) of this Act'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 100

ENFORCEMENT IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 95, in page 87, line 5 leave out '(7)' and insert ' (8) '.— [Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 101

ENFORCEMENT IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 87, line 28 leave out from 'provisions' to 'within' in line 31 and insert:
'specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 99 of this Act in their application as mentioned in those paragraphs and the provisions and regulations specified in paragraph (c) of that subsection'.

No. 97, in line 33 at end insert:
'to such extent as the arrangements or directions may provide'.

No. 98, in line 34 leave out '(a)'.

No. 99, in line 35, leave out '(b)'.

No. 100, in line 36 leave out from 'enforce' to end of line 37 and insert:
'the provisions specified in the said paragraphs (a) and (b) in their application as so mentioned and the provisions and regulations specified in the said paragraph (c)'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 114

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 99, line 6, leave out from 'with' to end of line 25 and insert:
'the provisions prescribed in Schedule (Fees chargeable in relation to licences and certificates relating to medical products)'.
Owing to the difficulties of timing, I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, but I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he intends to move something of the same sort in another place.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am afraid that, for the reasons which I gave in Standing Committee, it would not be possible to move any schedule of fees before the Commission is set up and much more extensive consultants take place. The hon. Gentleman wanted a little more information, so perhaps he would be interested to know that the Dunlop Committee has made some recent costings and that it says that, while the average cost to the Committee for a new submission with which it dealt was £72, submissions in respect of reformulations on average cost only £24, but major submissions, those

in which full toxicity and pharmacody-namics data are submitted in respect of new products, cost £288.
This shows that there is a great range of different costs involved and the only assurance which I can give is that it is likely that we shall be thinking in terms of a relatively large fee for licences for new products, a lower fee for reformulations, a low fee for renewals and no charge at all for variations resulting from proposals initiated by the licensing authority. It would be undesirable to fix levels of charge in the Bill, especially without any means of revision.
I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 115

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 102, in page 100, line 29, leave out 'appropriate Ministers' and insert:
'Ministers proposing to make the regulations or order'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Clause 116

MEANING OF "MEDICINAL PRODUCT" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 102, line 7, at end insert:
(d) nutritional substances, natural or synthetic, alone or in combination including amino acids, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals supplied at a level required to meet the normal accepted nutritional needs of animals or men.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 104, in Clause 117, page 103, line 13, at end insert:
'animal feeding stuffs' means a dietary mixture of amino acids, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, vitamins and other essential nutrients, whether natural or synthetic or both, which are fed to livestock in order to maintain growth, health and productivity.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: For the same reason of timing which my hon. Friend


mentioned, I will move the Amendment formally in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give some idea of his thoughts, because I know that he is thinking of the Amendment relating to animal feedingstuffs which it is intended to move in another place, and the words here are probably not suitable for him.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that we are looking carefully at this very knotty problem of feedingstuffs which are nutritional and could be medicinal or which are medicinal and could be nutritional. Our draftsmen and lawyers are looking at it carefully, and if we can come up with a solution, it will be brought forward in another place.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 117

GENERAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 104, line 31, leave out from 'remedy' to end of line 32 and insert:
'means a medicinal product consisting of a substance produced by subjecting a plant or plants to drying, crushing or any other process, or of a mixture whose sole ingredients are two or more substances so produced, or of a mixture whose sole ingredients are one or more substances so produced and water'.— [Mr. K. Robinson.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

SUSPENSION, REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF LICENCE

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 112, line 36, at end insert:
' or
(d) proposed to suspend, revoke or vary the licence on grounds not relating to safety, quality or efficacy '.

No. 109, in page 112, line 50, at end insert:
' and in a case falling within sub-paragraph (d) of that paragraph (whether it also falls within any of the other sub-paragraphs of that

paragraph or not) the notification shall include a statement of the proposals of the licensing authority and of the reasons for them'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

SAMPLING

Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 1ll, page 119, leave out lines 38 to 40.
If I am not taking too much upon myself, I would say that, on this occasion in Committee, "Homer nodded". An Amendment went through owing to a mistake by me, for which I apologise to the House. These lines are technically not well drafted, but, apart from that, the powers which the mover of the Amendment in Committee intended to protect are wholly unaffected by paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule. The provisions of that paragraph are directly related to the Medicines Bill or to Regulations or Orders made under it, so there is no question of the Schedule prejudicing or derogating from any of 'the Minister's rights under the National Health Service Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

ENACTMENTS OF PARLIAMENT OF UNITED KINGDOM REPEALED

Mr. Fortescue: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 123, line 36, at end insert' and in section 92(2)'.
This Amendment was put down simply to remind the Minister of his fulsome undertaking, which he gave at the end of the Committee stage, that he would do not only this but much more. He has done nothing.

Mr. Snow: I take note of those observations. It is only because of the great pressure of work on the Parliamentary draftsmen that this has not been done. It is my right hon. Friend's intention that the matter shall not be overlooked when the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. Fortescue: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — COUNTRYSIDE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 8, after "Countryside" insert "and National Parks".

Read a Second time.

6.50 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to alter the title of the Countryside Commission to that of "Countryside and National Parks Commission". In Committee of this House, an Opposition Amendment was carried to alter the title to "National Parks and Countryside Commission". But the original title, "Country Commission", was restored during the Report stage here without a Division. We now face an inverted form of that Amendment.
We debated this matter very fully and I would only say now that our objections to the proposed title are really the same as those put when we discussed the matter on Report—namely, that it is a cumbersome title which in practice would inevitably be shortened in daily usage. Most people, no doubt, would shorten it to "Countryside Commission"; others would probably shorten it to "National Parks Commission"; which could be a source of confusion; others might shorten it to initials, and "C.N.P.C." would not be very informative.
In any case, all this is superfluous because the shorter title we chose patently embraces the range of responsibility, including the National Parks. The proposed title in the Amendment would also carry an undesirable implication of divided re-

sponsibilities for the countryside and for the National Parks.
The decision to return to the shorter title on Report stage in this House had the support of the National Parks Commission and the Chairman has again written to me expressing the Commission's views on this Amendment, in the following terms:
It is the Commission's considered view that the short title ' Countryside Commission' is preferable to 'Country and National Parks Commission '.
In both Houses the main argument advanced for the retention of a reference to National Parks in the title has been that the absence of such a mention would adversely affect the status of the parks. As I stated emphatically on Report, this is not the Government's view. We do not think that the title "Countryside Commission" will mean any downgrading of the status of the National Parks. They will continue to be known as National Parks by their own particular names, and the planning committees and boards responsible for them will continue to bear the full titles of their National Parks. For these reasons, which are really repetitions of our arguments on Report, I advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has decided not to accept the compromise which I thought generally satisfactory to a great number of people in another place and outside it. He has reminded us that, in Standing Committee, the original title "Countryside Commission" was changed to "National Parks and Countryside Commission" and that the Government reversed this decision on Report.
In Standing Committee, I supported the original title but hon. Members on both sides were anxious for a compromise between the two points of view expressed so forcibly. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and others were anxious for a change of title to "National Parks and Countryside Commission". This matter was debated also in the House of Lords fully in Committee and on Report and a genuine attempt was finally made to resolve the serious differences of opinion. I do not say that this is a matter of


earth-shaking consequence but it is an important matter.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: The titles we give to our parks and to many cither things always seem far too long. Is it not possible for us to agree on something short and concise and which the public can seize on easily? A compromise like this, which would simply substitute one long title for the other originally proposed here, with neither falling easily off the tongue, is not a good way to proceed with these bodies. We should look at this again and see whether something concise cannot be used.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If anyone attempted to do so at this stage, he would be out of order.

Mr. Channon: I understand the point. Indeed, I supported it in Standing Committee, but it was not the view of a large number of my hon. Friends nor that of a number of hon. members opposite. Nor was it the view, indeed, of many of their Lordships. I understand their views and therefore I do not fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris).
There are those who fear that, unless the National Parks are mentioned in the title, some of the original impetus on which the present National Parks Commission was set up and some of its outstanding work, to which we all pay tribute, might be lost. We must, of course, lend weight to the Chairman's letter and many hon. Members felt that the shorter title was more succinct and more practical. It is true that the title "Countryside" includes the National Parks and I agreed, when we discussed this earlier, that if the Commission was called "National Parks and Countryside Commission", giving it the initials N.P.C.C,

there could be some danger of confusion with such bodies as the N.S.P.C.C.
The two views were reconciled, as far as possible, in another place, largely owing to suggestions put forward by my noble Friends Lord Swinton, Lord Nelson and Lord Brooke of Cumnor. They put the ingenious suggestion that both points could be met if the Commission were called "Countryside and National Parks Commission", thus preserving the reference to the National Parks while accepting that, in practice, the Commission would be called the "Countryside Commission".
After all, the full title of the original Act was the "National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act" but it is nearly always referred to as the "National Parks Act". If we had the title "Countryside and National Parks Commission", we should have the shorter title "Countryside Commission" used in practice but the full title would preserve the name"National Parks", which is what so many people wish to do.
These are extremely finely balanced arguments both ways. I was quite happy with the original title "Countryside Commission". I voted against the original Amendment including the title "National Parks". But many others took a different view. I would be happier if we could stick to this compromise set out by their Lordships. It can hardly be said to be a party issue. It is an issue which the House of Commons is qualified to judge and on balance, the great effort having been made—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

(By Order)

As amended, considered.

New Clause

INCREASE OF WIDOW'S PENSION

Paragraph (4) of regulation 8 (Widow's pension) of the Regulations of 1954 shall have effect as if for the words 'one-third' there were substituted the words 'one-half'.—(Mr.Moylc.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest to the House that with this proposed new Clause we discuss all the other new Clauses which are, I think, linked in their topic. The hon. Member has moved the first new Clause, but he can speak about all the new Clauses, which are: new Clause entitled "Further opportunity to exercise option"; new Clause entitled "Increased benefits for certain service beyond the age of 60"; new Clause entitled "Modification of provisions as to re-employment of pensioners"; new Clause entitled "Children's and dependent widower's pensions"; new Clause entitled "Dependent widower's pension", and new Clause entitled "Interpretation of last two foregoing regulations".

Mr. Moyle: That course is certainly convenient to me, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that it will be convenient to the House.
I would have sought to table these Amendments earlier had my attention been drawn to the superannuation provisions in the Bill but, as that was not done, I had no alternative but to table them at this stage.
I am not a superannuation expert, but I have taken part in the consideration of superannuation policy in industry and have represented the personnel function on various committees, so that I am not entirely without understanding of the issues raised by the Bill and of some of its omissions.
If we apply certain tests to local authority superannuation provisions, a

fair minded person must come to the conclusion that these provisions are much less favourable to the employees than are many similar schemes in the public service. My own judgment in the matter is fortified by the knowledge that the staff of the Greater London Council probably hold the same point of view. In particular, that point of view is held by the National Union of Public Employees, over whose interests in this House I have come to watch and with which I am fairly closely connected. It is a union which has a long and successful practice of looking after the interests of local authority employees in London, organising those employees in London, and improving their terms and conditions of service.
One test of a pension scheme is the level of the employee's contribution. On this test it will be found throughout the public service that the highest contributions are in local government and in the teaching profession. If we apply the test of the ratio of employers' fixed rate contribution to employees' contribution, that ratio is lowest in local government and in the teaching profession. Another test is that of dependants' benefits in respect of married men. Again, the level of these benefits is lowest in local government. Looking at the proportion of cost borne by married men in this respect, we find that the whole cost is borne by contributors only in local government and in the National Health Service. Finally, we have the test of minimum age at retirement on pension. In this respect, those in the nationalised industries are worst off, but they are followed very closely by local government male employees, and local government women employees are the worst off of all.
Therefore, by quite a comprehensive list of tests the pension schemes of local authorities—and these include the Greater London Council superannuation scheme —are rather worse than those in other parts under the public service. Local government employees, who once led the way in superannuable employment in public service outside the Civil Service, have slipped back considerably.
It is my contention that this situation ought to be radically altered and we now have an opportunity to alter it in the case of the Greater London Council employees. It is short-sighted to maintain


the existing dispensation. Superannuation has traditionally meant provision during working life for the unfortunate, in some cases, onset of old age, and to provide security against it. Nowadays, the best schemes are moving into an era where the term "employee security" ought more properly to be applied, because the general experience is that modification of existing superannuation schemes, with only a marginal increase in crease in cost, can provide an atmosphere of security for employees throughout the greater part of their working lives. Superannuation schemes which provide that atmosphere can make a positive contribution to personnel policy in terms of assisting reorganisation, surmounting the problem;;, often unwelcome, attached to redundancy, and facilitating the redeployment of staff to meet new conditions in the employer's business.
What I have said so far would, I think, be welcomed on the whole by local authority employees, but once we start talking about improving the efficiency of local authority administration the public are able to take an interest. Here I refer the House to paragraphs 473 and 480 of the Report of the Mallaby Committee on the Staffing of Local Government. The Committee reported in December, 1966. We read in paragraph 473:
… local authorities should recruit qualified and experienced officers from the private sector and … superannuation schemes should be modified to facilitate this. We further recommend that facilities should be developed to enable some local government officers to gain experience in industry or commerce during their period of training.
In paragraph 480 the Committee states:
We recommend that the proposals of the Ministry of Labour Committee on the Preservation of Pension Rights should be implemented to assist in the recruitment of professional staff by local authorities.
The Maud Report said very much the same thing. It is with these considerations in mind, as much as the welfare of the staff of the Greater London Council, that I have tabled these Amendments.
The first Amendment, relating to in-erased widows' pensions, is self-explanatory. The present provision is that if a man dies whilst receiving pension, his widow receives one-third of his pension. If he dies whilst he is within pensionable service, the widow receives one-third of the pension he would have

received had he been incapacitated instead of dying. The Amendment would increase the fraction to one-half in each case. This adjustment is essential from the point of view of good staff relations, and would help to deal with problems raised in respect of one of the tests I apply to local authority schemes.
Another of the new Clauses deals with children's and dependent widowers' pensions. These are tidying-up Amendments. When, under the London County Council superannuation scheme, an employee died, a widow's pension was payable, and a children's pension was also payable by virtue of Article 30 of the L.C.C. superannuation scheme of 1958. As a result of the creation of the Greater London Council, that Council has absorbed many other local authorities with differing pension provisions. The object of this Amendment is to extend the provision to all employees of what is now the Greater London Council.
Similarly, the L.C.C. scheme allowed a woman contributor who unfortunately had an incapacitated husband to support to elect to be treated as a male employee and earn benefits for her potential widower and her unfortunate children in exactly the same way as a male employee would have done. Again the Greater London Council has been extended to cover a large number of employees of other local authorities in parts of Kent, Middlesex and Essex. This proposal is designed to extend the excellent provision for widowers' pensions and children's pensions earned by women contributing employees to those formerly employed by those other local authorities.
Then we have a new Clause designed to increase the benefit for certain service beyond the age of 60. One of the paradoxes of superannuation is that at the same time as there is pressure for lowering the retirement age there is pressure for a longer working life. Many people in the middle of their employment period look forward to the onset of retirement, but when the magic age of 60 or 65 approaches they discover that the prospect of years of enforced idleness before them is not the challenge which they thought it would be, or alternatively it is too much of a challenge. A great number of male employees contributing to


pension schemes, if they had the chance, would opt for a longer working life.
This paradox of the two pressures in superannuation is quite desirable because with it can come the general abandonment of the arbitrarily fixed retirement age and the abandonment of the thought that at 64 years and 364 days one is capable of work but at 64 years and 365 days one is incapable of work. This would lead to a general voluntary selection of retirement dates and extend in practice the level of the employee's working life. We have the present position in the Greater London area that a man can retire with 40 years' service or extend it for five years with the council's agreement. If he retired after 40 years' service he would earn one-sixtieth of average annual salary for each year of service. If he extends beyond a fixed retiring date for a further five years he will pay the same rate of contribution as he paid throughout his working life and get an accrual of benefit at the same rate. The result in practice is that the average rate of pay after 45 years is not likely to differ significantly from that after 40 years' service.
If one takes account of the benefits forgone plus the further contributions the employee has paid for five years, plus the fact that the expectation of life of a man of 60 is about 15 years, it is unlikely that the employee will recoup the benefits forgone during the remainder of his pensionable life. This is a deterrent to extended employment which I am sure we should discourage. The ideal remedy is, while not increasing contributions, to allow the employee during his extended service to accumulate benefit at three times the previous principal retirement date fraction, but I am asking for only twice the fraction subject to power for the council to ask the Minister for a higher fraction if necessary. This would extend, not for five years, but to extended service up to age 70.
7.15 p.m.
There is a safeguard in all this, because all appointments of this nature are held at the discretion of the Greater London Council and can be terminated at the council's discretion, but this would remove a deterrent from extended employment. There is no exact precedent for this proposal in public service pen-

sions, but in the National Insurance Scheme, both the State pension scheme and the graduated scheme, there are provisions for dealing with deterrence of this sort to extended employment and also in the Gas Council's staff superannuation scheme, although these are different ways of solving the problem.
Then there is the question of benefits in certain cases of premature retirement. Here the Government have accepted a principle which we should like to see accepted. The only argument is about the age at which they should operate. The Government, I understand, are prepared to accept that a redundancy pension can be paid to a man declared redundant at age 55 or over. The only point I raise is, why should the age not be 50? It would increase the flexibility of the pension scheme and guard against some cases of redundancy and enable the council to be freer in the extent to which it was prepared to reorganise from time to time.
I understand that at the moment the Government are prepared to agree to the provision of a frozen pension after 25 years of service, provided the employee is over 55. The employee can leave the service of the council if he fulfils those conditions and, instead of getting a return of contributions for pension, they will be held for the superannuation fund of the Greater London Council until normal retirement date, when he will be free to draw them, or in certain circumstances in compassionate cases they may be drawn before retirement date. This is of considerable benefit to employees and a much greater benefit than the return of contributions. For the same reasons I advanced earlier, I put the question, why not at 50? We should think that age 50 would be a better qualifying age than 55.
I also propose an Amendment concerning modification for re-employment of pensioners. The object is to remove the deterrent effect which sometimes arises from a case of extended service beyond retirement age. I can best put this forward by asking the House to consider an example. Say Mr. A, who retired five years ago, was earning a salary of £1,000 per annum when he retired. The present superannuation provisions say that the council shall be empowered to re-employ him subject to the top limit of his income from all council sources being equal to


the salary he was earning at the time be retired, in this case, £1,000 per annum. If we assume that he is employed after official retirement age at £500 per annum, that would automatically keep his pension fixed at £500 per annum. Suppose that in the intervening period during retirement a Pensions (Increase) Act is passed which has the effect of increasing his pension by 10 per cent. He would then get a total remuneration of £1,050 per annum. There can be less fortunate circumstances than that. For example, if the post in which Mr. A was employed during his post-retirement employment received a salary increase of up to £600 per annum, to keep his total remuneration below £1,000 his pension would be reduced to £400 per annum. The percentage pension increase allowable by the Pensions (Increase) Act would then have the effect of giving him an extra £40 instead of an extra £50. The result of his salary increase, which would be very much an Irishman's rise, would be that he would be earning £10 a year less after the salary increase than he was before.
In my new Clause I suggest that the top rate of remuneration ought not to be the rate of remuneration which the man was earning immediately before his retirement but the rate of remuneration which the post is carrying at the current date. If the accepted post-war practice is followed, it is highly likely, in the example I have been quoting, that the top rate of remuneration would by now be somewhat in excess of £1,000 per annum and the difficulty to which I have drawn attention would be much less likely to arise.
In view of these improvements in benefits which I am proposing, it would be only just and proper if a further opportunity to exercise an option to come into the Greater London Council's superannuation scheme were provided to people who have in days past opted out. I know that there is always some reluctance to afford these extra options. There is a reluctance based on the ground that, if a final choice which is supposed to be exercised in regard to pension rights is regarded not as a final choice, contributing employees may be encouraged to play the situation by ear and secure benefits by possibly a reduced rate of

contribution, as can happen in certain circumstances.
On the other hand, I think that, where there is an improvement in benefits coming along, a further option to come into the scheme is a sound idea on several grounds. There is the justice of the matter. People took their decision on different facts from those now in existence. There is the question of good staff relations. If there is uniformity of treatment of staff of the same grade throughout an employer's organisation, there tends to be a removal of tensions arising from the differences. There is also from the point of view of the employer the not inconsiderable aspect of simplicity of administration. The difficulty of most pension officers' jobs is considerably increased by having a number of differing pension schemes to administer, some of which have a very small membership. Finally, if one believes that a superannuation scheme can play a positive rôle in the personnel policy of the organisation, it is better if the superannuation scheme applies to as many people as possible.
I want to say a few words on the subject of financing and cost. I said earlier that the employee's contributions matched the employers' contributions exactly in the local authority superannuation schemes, although the employer was responsible for deficiency payments where the scheme ran into deficiencies. This is perfectly true. For example, inflationary wage increases and other sorts of wage increases have been granted over the years and have tended to upset the actuarial basis upon which the original contributions were made. Technically, the employers have to meet these deficiencies.
However, the Trustee Act, 1961 allowed local authority superannuation funds to invest one-half of their funds in equities. This has proved to be a great boon to local authority superannuation schemes. I do not have the figures before me, but I think that there are good grounds for saying that the bulk at least of employers' deficiency payments which would have fallen to be paid by employers have been made good by the increased returns on the investment of the superannuation funds in equities.
The position will be improved in the future, because, by virtue of this Bill,


three-quarters will now be allowable for investment in equities. By Section 9 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1967, the council can also invest in the property market. Therefore, if there is an increased cost in this scheme, the council is in a good position to meet it.
What is the cost? I appreciate that it is difficult to be precise, because the present pattern of retirement may be altered by the proposals which I seek to have inserted into the Bill. With this caveat, as far as can be seen new entrants, if they are married men, will have to pay about 1 per cent. of pensionable pay in addition throughout service, and other contributors will pay about ¼ per cent. To put it in other words, the increased cost will be about 13 per cent. of contributions throughout service, of which the officer will have to meet about 6 per cent. Therefore, subject to the caveat I entered earlier about the question of retirement pattern—this depends not only upon the pressures of the scheme as it would be amended by me, but also upon economic circumstances affecting the individual's decision—it seems as though the cost to the Council might be an extra 7 per cent.
This is an entirely reasonable cost for the Council to meet, given the favourable position in which its superannuation scheme is quite likely to be placed. Therefore, on the grounds of reasonableness, of justice, and of equity between employee and employee, and also on the ground of enabling the Council's superannuation scheme to pay a more positive rôle in personnel management policy within the G.L.C. area, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will have no hesitation in accepting all my Amendments.

Mr. Brian Batsford: I listened with great interest to all the arguments that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) advanced on his new Clauses and Amendments, particularly because he has been putting the case for the Greater London Council. The Council has constantly asked why the superannuation provisions in local government should still continue to lag behind those in the Civil Service and other forms of public employment.
All the Amendments seek to put back into the Bill in identical wording Clauses

which formed Part V of the original Bill. The only difference is that they are not in the same order. One suggested Clause would follow one which is consequential upon it. These Clauses were, in the original Bill, an entirely justifiable attempt by a progressive local authority to secure what I would call reasonable and overdue improvement in its superannuation arrangements.
Before I come to the purpose behind each of the Amendments, it might be appropriate if I were briefly to describe how these Clauses came to be deleted from the original Bill. The Bill was first deposited in the House on 27th November, 1967. On 26th January the G.L.C. was informed that the Government intended to block Part V of the Bill and that, if the council was not prepared to withdraw all, or nearly all, the Clauses in Part V, it was the Government's intention to issue a mandatory instruction to the Committee to omit those Clauses. I do not intend to go into the precedents now, but I think that would have been an act almost without precedent.
7.30 p.m.
Fortunately, on this occasion, however, negotiations between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Greater London Council were not abandoned. On 28th February, I led a deputation to the Ministry consisting of the chairman of the G.L.C. General Purposes Committee, the leader of the opposition at County Hall, Sir Reginald Goodwin, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the Chief Officers of the Council.
We were received by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State. He must forgive me if I say that there have been occasions during the past year when I have thought that every Government Department has a motto on the wall, nicely framed, saying, "Never agree with the G.L.C.". But on this occasion, at least, we were most cordially received and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, a compromise was ultimately reached. The Government allowed the G.L.C. to retain some of the Clauses in Part V, and the G.L.C. for its part agreed to withdraw others. As a result, the Government no longer blocked the Bill, and it received a Second Reading on 7th March.
A number of alterations to the original Bill were made in the Unopposed Private Bills Committee. If the hon. Member for Lewisham, North and his union—I admit that he has, in a sense, said that he did not have sufficient notice about it— had wished to protest against the deletion of these Clauses, they could have put down what is known as a "Petition against Alteration" and, as a result, the Bill would presumably have been sent to an Opposed Private Bills Committee and these proposals would have been discussed in detail. As it is, the Clauses which the G.L.C. agreed to delete are precisely those which the hon. Gentleman now seeks to restore.
I come now to the new Clauses themselves. I shall be brief because the hon. Gentleman has described them in detail and I have no wish to duplicate what hs has said. The first, "Increase of widow's pension", was Clause 33 of the original Bill. The wording is identical, and, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, this is just about the most important of the new Clauses now before the House.
Under existing local authority schemes, the employee-contributor or officer is required to pay the whole cost of his widow's pension. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is done by surrendering two-thirds of the tax-free lump sum which he receives on his retirement. This means that the officer pays two-thirds of his expected lump sum in order to guarantee to his wife a pension which is only one-third of what his pension would be on the date of his death, that is, his death at any time. The increased benefit proposed in the new Clause is that the wife should have half her husband's pension when he dies, not one-third, and it was the intention here that the Greater London Council would make up the difference.
By way of comparison, in the Civil Service the lump-sum grant at the end is reduced by only one-third, not two-thirds, to cover the widow's pension. It is interesting to note that the change recommended here was the first recommendation of the Working Party on Local Government Superannuation which was set up in 1962 and on which sat representatives from all the local authority associations. Alter receiving an estimate of the annual cost which might be involved, the Working Party reported its opinion that the

improvement of pensions for widows and also for dependants and children should take precedence over all others in this legislation. Thus, the new Clause now before us is intended to put back one of the main Clauses in Part V which were withdrawn as a result of the agreement between the G.L.C. and the Government, and in return for concessions elsewhere.
The second new Clause, "Further opportunity to exercise an option", was Clause 35 of the original Bill, being consequential on Clauses 33 and 34 dealing with widows' pensions and children's pensions. To summarise the position, in 1954, local government employees were given the option of retaining the superannuation rights which they had up to that moment or accepting the new rights, that is to say, those now existing under the present G.L.C. scheme. Obviously, a number opted to retain their former rights, not thinking that the new ones offered were good enough. When the original Bill was presented to the House, with the proposal to increase widows' pensions from one-third to half and also to provide for a children's pension, it was felt that the people who had had an option previously should have an option again to decide whether they wanted to join the new scheme. Accordingly, the corresponding Clause in the original Bill, Clause 35, automatically fell with Clauses 33 and 34.
The third new Clause, the purpose of which the hon. Gentleman put very cogently, would provide increased benefits for service beyond 60 years of age. The G.L.C. agreed to withdraw the corresponding Clause in the original Bill. It was simply a proposal to encourage qualified and experienced staff to continue at work, but there were, I understand, Inland Revenue difficulties and a certain amount of cost would have been involved.
Now, I come to the fourth new Clause, "Modification of provisions as to re-employment of pensioners". This was designed to cover the re-employment of retired staff. As the hon. Gentleman explained, if a retired person returns to work he is paid his pension, and receives a supplement bringing it up to the salary which he received before he retired. The object of the Clause was that, when an officer returned to work, the G.L.C. would have the right to increase his supplement to bring his salary up to the current level paid for the job. This, I


understand, already exists for teachers. However the Greater London Council agreed to withdraw the Clause.
The fifth new Clause, dealing with children's pensions, is the one which, in a sense, is in the wrong order on the Order Paper. At present, the G.L.C. superannuation arrangements make no provisions for officers' children. What the G.L.C. attempted to do here was to put its officers on a par with ex-officers of the London County Council and officers in Government Departments and elsewhere in the public service. One has to remember that a large proportion of the officers at County Hall are ex-officers of the London County Council. The intention behind the Clause, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, I think, has been largely met by Clause 33 in the Bill as it now stands, a new Clause put in with the agreement of the Government and permitting the payment of gratuities by the Council. Although it does not actually say so, this could cover children's pensions. The gratuities may be paid provided that the father dies in the service or within a year of leaving it.
This new Clause was allowed by the Government to replace Clause 34 in the original Bill, which the hon. Gentleman now seeks to put back. The only major difference between the new Clause 33 and the hon. Gentleman's proposed new Clause is that children's pensions in his case would be made payable as of right at any time after the father's death, instead of, as at present, just within a year.
Although the Greater London Council has a good deal of sympathy with the new Clauses—obviously enough, as they were the Council's original proposals— we stand by the agreement we reached with the Government. In view of the concessions they made we should prefer the Bill to go through in its present form, on the understanding, we hope, that similar proposals could well be put forward in another general powers Bill at a later stage.
I hope that the Minister of State can give us some assurance that the whole question of local government superannuation will be looked at again as a matter of urgency.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDennot): My hon. Friend the

Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) was unduly modest about his expertise in this field. He revealed very considerable knowledge in his speech.
The new Clauses are all to reinstate provisions taken out of the original Bill as a result of objections by the Government, so it behoves me to explain the Government's attitude. The Government took the view that the provisions were untimely and premature because of their imminent proposals arising out of the review of the social security system. As the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) told the House, the Government's view was that the nature of the objections was such that they were prepared if necessary to take steps on Second Reading to ensure that the provisions were deleted. The promoters were informed of this and invited to withdraw the Clauses.
The reasons for the Government's objections were threefold. First, because the Government's own proposals for a national earnings-related pension scheme would be likely to require a substantial adjustment in the local government and other occupational pension schemes, and until the implications of the Government's scheme could be assessed substantial changes in the local government scheme should be avoided.
Second, they were objectionable because N.A.L.G.O. and the local authority associations have their own proposals for amending the local government scheme in its application to local authorities generally, and while there has been agreement on the proposals that are desirable, there has been no agreement on how the cost should be borne, and on the part of one of the main employers' associations a preference to defer implementation until the Government's own proposals are known.
Third, they were objectionable because the introduction of improved benefits for employees of particular authorities, wholly at the employer's cost, as they would have been in this case, as a bait to recruit staff, would introduce undesirable competition between authorities for scarce staff.
In the event the G.L.C. agreed to withdraw the provisions to which rooted objection had been taken, although this was not before the deputation led by the


hon. Member for Ealing, South had put its views to me in the most forthright way. I am glad to say that as a result of that meeting we were able to agree that some of its provisions could go forward. It is because of this that the Bill as it now comes before the House does contain some useful, though minor, provisions bearing on superannuation. For instance the Bill contains provisions which, first, will allow death grant to be paid to trustees in order to reduce liability to estate duty; second, will allow premature retirement within 10 years of normal retiring age of 65, with an immediate pension in the case of compulsory retirement on grounds of inefficiency, or with a frozen pension payable from normal retiring age in the case of voluntary retirement.
7.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend asked me to explain in this connection why the age of 55 rather than 50 was taken as the age at which premature retirement could take place without loss of pension. The answer is that where premature retirement provisions exist in other schemes they restrict the period within which the premature retirement may take place to 10 years before retiring age. This is 65 in the local government superannuation scheme, and premature retirement should not, therefore, be allowed earlier than 55. The reference to 50 is probably due to the fact that it is 50 in the Civil Service, where the normal retiring age is 60, but the point is that it should be 10 years before normal retiring age.
Third, the Bill contains provisions which will allow the making of a scheme by the G.L.C., although subject to the Minister's approval, for transfer of pension rights with the private sector.
We felt that as there were precedents in other occupational schemes or similar parallel powers for these three minor provisions, it would be wrong to continue to stand in their way, particularly as to allow these variations did not prejudice the validity of the objection to the differential levels of benefit which would have been introduced by the Clauses that were withdrawn. The Bill retains these advances, small as they are, even though they fall short of what the Promoters originally had in mind.
The present position on the Bill has therefore been reached after the most careful consideration and with the agreement of the G.L.C.—even though this was given with some reluctance. My hon. Friend's Amendments would have the effect of bringing about the very things which the Government has sought to avoid, namely, premature and piecemeal amendment of the local government superannuation scheme before account can be taken of the Government's own proposals; before both sides of the local government service are fully agreed on the future of the local government superannuation scheme; and in a way that may throw additional burdens on rates and would increase competition for already scarce staff.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: It is central to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that the Government are about to announce this scheme and that consideration of this matter should await the scheme. Can he give any idea of when the scheme will be announced?

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security has said that she expects to publish it before the end of the year.
It will be apparent from what I have said that the grounds for the Government objection to the Clauses is one of timing rather than merit. My hon. Friend has argued that the local government superannuation scheme is in various respects less favourable than other schemes in the public sector. I would not seek to challenge this. Nor would I suggest that the time was not ripe for a review of the local government scheme, were it not for the fact that any legislation on that subject must have regard to the Government's proposals which are due to be published before the end of this year. I hope that that statement is sufficient answer to the last question of the hon. Member for Ealing, South.
I do not want it to be thought that I have accepted all the arguments my hon. Friend has put forward or all the provisions in the new Clauses. But neither am I rejecting them. What I am saying is, first, that it would not be right to legislate for the G.L.C. alone so as to put it ahead not only of other local government schemes, but also in some


respects, of the public sector generally; sand, second, that we cannot legislate for the local government scheme generally until the shape of the Government's new earnings-related pension proposals are known, and until a decision has been reached on how any improvements in the scheme are to be financed.
Finally, I should point out to the House that similar provisions to those which were withdrawn from this Bill were also included in a Private Local Bill of this Session which was promoted by the Cheshire County Council, which, like the Greater London Council, withdrew the provisions when it learned of the force of our objections. It would be patently unfair to the Cheshire County Council if the House were now seriously to consider reinstating provisions in the G.L.C. Bill when the opportunity has passed for the Cheshire Bill to be treated in the same way.
I do not think that there is anything I wish to say on the other provisions in the Bill. It has been carefully considered by the Unopposed Private Bill Committee, and in my view the House would now be well advised to let the Bill proceed on its way. I hope that in view of what I have said my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press the Amendments.

Mr. Moyle: I was naturally very disappointed by my hon. and learned Friend's reply, as the staff of the G.L.C. will be. "Jam today rather than jam tomorrow" is a much better prospect. I cannot see that I would get a majority in the Lobby if I forced the issue to a Division and I have been reinforced in this judgment by the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford). However, I was also encouraged to hear that the Government's general proposals for improvement of the social security scheme will be out by the end of this year because I take the view that the extent

to which we can get homogeneous pension provisions throughout employment will determine the extent to which the employment position can be improved throughout the country in terms of flexibility and deployment of scarce and skilled manpower.
Having heard my hon. and learned Friend, I feel the Government are fully seized of the problem and in a position to take action in the not too distant future to improve the superannuation provisions of local authority staff, the G.L.C. staff in particular. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23

APPLICATION TO CROWN PREMISES, ETC.

Mr. Batsford: I beg to move, in page 20, line 9, leave out 'timber or other'.
This Amendment is in anticipation of a change in Clause 15, the definition Clause. It is proposed in that Clause to include the word "timber" in the definition of flammable materials and it is understood that this is to be done in another place. It will ultimately mean the deletion of "timber or other" throughout the whole of Part III. To avoid resubmission to Her Majesty this Amendment is moved now.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made In line 14, leave out 'and to prevent a recurrence of that cause for complaint'.

In line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
In line 43, after '1952', add ', and includes any headquarters or organisation for the time being designated by an Order in Council under section 1 of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act, 1964, for the purposes of that Act'.—[Mr. Batsford.]

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — COUNTRYSIDE BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Clause 1

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: When the proceedings were interrupted at 7 o'clock I was just concluding my remarks. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to accept the proposed compromise arrangements suggested in another place. There is no point of party philosophy here, and it is a decision which would be regretted by hon. Members in all quarters. I regret the Government's decision, and I would be inclined to oppose the Government's Motion, That this House doth disagree with the Lords. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree to support the Lords in their attempts to change the title.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I have a somewhat chequered personal history in this matter, because on Second Reading I made a rather bizarre speech about the problems which my constituents have when visitors come to the Lake District National Park, and find it difficult to distinguish between an urban and a national park. I remember quoting examples of how these problems make life extremely difficult for my constituents in some of the valleys of the Lake District. I made the point that I very much disliked this name "National Parks". I still dislike it and at an earlier stage I invited anyone who could think of a better name to let me know.
No one has given me any suggestions, and I have not been able to think of one, although I have spent a great deal of time trying to do so. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that there is no better name than "National Park". When I was trying to find a better name the Minister of State said he would consider it if I could think of one. We have to live with this name and the only solution is to try and educate the public to distinguish between an urban and a National Park.
I fear that I will have to change my attitude which I took in Committee when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) voted with the Government, although we were defeated. I could have wished to have been in better company. We have to live with the name. The Lords Amendment seeks to call it the "Countryside and National Parks Commission" which gives less emphasis to this phrase "National Park". I have given a great deal of thought to this, but I must come down in favour of the proposal put by their Lordships. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts on this and will drop their determination to reject the Lords Amendment. There is a very good case for keeping the Title as their Lordships have made it.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I should like to endorse what the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has said, and hope that the Government will have fourth or fifth thoughts on this. The counter-argument is that this is not the wish of the National Parks Commission. When the matter came before the House on Report, I referred to the views of the Commission which sat under Lord Strang. I was corrected by my hon. and learned Friend and told that that might be Lord Strang's view in his day, but it was not the view of the Commission today.
I took the trouble of looking up the reports of the National Parks Commission as published under the chairmanship of Baroness Wootton, and I should like my hon. and learned Friend to look at the report published in 1966 under her chairmanship. I understand that the composition of the Commission has not changed since the issue of this report, except for one person. I have great difficulty in reconciling the written word as it appears on page 79 of the report with the views now attributed to the National Parks Commission. This is what the Commission said in 1966:
It is important therefore that the name 'national park' should not be withdrawn from public notice, or that any impression should be given that the cause of national parks will be allowed to go by default. The National Parks Commission have therefore strongly advised that the name to be given to the new Commission should be the Countryside and National Parks Commission. This proposal


was made by the National Parks Commission, and the Minister has recently attended one of their meetings.
We made the initial mistake when moving our Amendment in Committee of giving priority to the term 'National Parks'. The Amendment then adopted was to make the title read "National Parks and Countryside Commission". We were obviously in conflict with the Commission sitting under Baroness Wootton which wished the title to read "Countryside and National Parks Commission". In another place an Amend-

ment was carried to the effect that the term "National Parks" should go back into the title, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give further thought to this, and at least tell us why it is that between 1966 and 1968 the present Commissioners have had further thoughts.

8.0 p.m.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 81.

Division No. 231.]
AYES
[8.1 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Beaney, Alan
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jackson, Colin (B,h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Judd, Frank
Robinson, w. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Roebuck, Roy


Coe, Denlis
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skeffington, Arthur


Dickens, James
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph


Dobson, Ray
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Eadie, Alex
Lubbock, Eric
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yard ley)
McCann, John
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Ford, Ben
MacPherson Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fowler, Gerry
Manuel, Archie
Wallace, George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gourlay, Harry
Maxwell, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitaker, Ben


Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Biytn)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harper, Joseph
Moyie, Roland
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert
Woof, Robert


Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan



Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Charles R. Morris.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gibson-Watt, David
Irvine, Bryant God man (Rye)


Batsford, Brian
Glyn, Sir Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhew, Victor
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grant, Anthony
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Jopling, Michael


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grieve, Percy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Channon, H. P. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lane, David


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Loveys, W. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hawkins, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus


Errington, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Mawby, Ray


Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Foster, Sir John
Hunt, John
Monro, Hector




More, Jasper
Pink, R. Bonner
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Murton, Oscar
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Onslow, Cranley
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Scott, Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sharples, Richard
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Silvester, Frederick
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)



Psrcival, lan
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Speed, Keith
Mr. Timothy Kitson and




Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

Lords A mendment, No. 2: In page 1, line 11, after first "for" insert:
the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and ".

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
If it is agreeable to the House I suggest that we discuss with this Amendment Lords Amendment No. 58, in the Title, in line 4, after"for"insert:"the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and for".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. MacDermot: The effect of the first Amendment is to add
the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside ".
to the list set out in Clause 1(2) of the functions which the Commission has to exercise under the Bill. The effect of the second Amendment is to make a consequential amendment to the long Title of the Bill.
A similar Amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and others in Standing Committee, was not selected.
The National Parks Commission is at present charged with the duty of exercising its functions under the Act of 1949 for the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty in England and Wales. The Countryside Commission would be under the same duty. Under Clause 2(2) it would be under a duty to keep under review all matters relating to
the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
There are further references in the Bill to natural beauty and amenity.
It is not necessary, as a matter of law, to have any further elaboration of the Commission's responsibility in these matters. One may say that these Amendments are really presentational, but they concern matters to which some people attach a good deal of importance. I can see no harm in them and I would advise the House to accept them.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the Minister of State for his attitude towards the Amendment. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be delighted to support their Lordships in this Amendment. We owe a debt of gratitude to another place for having passed the Amendment, having voted on it and defeated the Government on that occasion. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting it. Although it will make but a small difference, it is along the right lines.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

NEW FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 3, line 27, leave out
with the approval of the Minister".

Read a Second time.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The apparent intention of this Amendment would be to permit the Commission to place the services of its officers, or of consultants engaged by it, at the disposal of a local planning authority or other public body on mutually acceptable terms, but without the need for the Minister's approval to those terms. I should make clear that the Commission will not have a grant in aid, and its accounting and personnel functions will be discharged by the Ministry as is now the case with the National Parks Commission. It will not, for example, have any separate establishment officer.
The officers and servants of the Commission are appointed subject to the approval of the Minister and of the Treasury. That is provided for in Section 2(4) of the 1949 Act. The same applies to consultants engaged by the Commission. Therefore, it would be both illogical and improper for the Minister to abrogate his responsibilities in cases where the staff or consultants of the Commission are to be loaned, possibly for substantial periods. Indeed, it is right that I should make clear to the House that, whether or not the words deleted by the Amendment are present in the Bill, the Minister will retain his responsibility, and in practice his approval would be required.
This is because the funds of the Commission derive from the Ministry's Vote, and the staff of the Commission are civil servants under the Minister's control. The Minister, therefore, has to satisfy himself that the terms of any proposed loan are not to the financial disadvantage of the public purse. It would be misleading to allow the Amendment to be made, because a false impression might be given about how this provision would work in practice. For these reasons, I must advise the House to disagree with this Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I am sorry that the Minister of State has taken this view. The Countryside Commission, as it is to be called, has far too much finicky day-to-day control put upon it by the Government. A small attempt was made in another place to remove some small finicky control requiring the consent of the Minister if the Commission was to lend civil servants to a local authority for a period. If the Commission lends civil servants to a local authority for two days' work, it will have to get Ministerial approval. If we are to set up a Countryside Commission, which has a very important rôle to play for the future of the countryside, and we hope to get important people to serve on it, and serve with distinction, it is ridiculous that it should be given no discretion.
I moved an Amendment on Report, which would have gone further than this dealing with the Commission's finances. It would be out of order for me to

speak about it now. We all accept, however, that broad powers of control have to be given to the Minister over the activities of the Commission. The Minister must have power to direct its activities and to give it guidelines to follow. But the Bill goes much further than that. It demands a fantastic degree of control. The Commission cannot lend a member of its staff to a local authority for two weeks without Ministerial approval. The rate of pay cannot be fixed without a Ministerial approval. If the Commission is to undertake important functions it should be given some discretion in these minor matters.
This disagreement with the Lords Amendment is nothing more than a piece of bureaucratic nonsense. If the Government insist on turning down what appears to be a perfectly reasonable Amendment made in another place and demand this fantastic degree of Ministerial day-to-day control, I hope that Ministers will not tell us that they are overworked, because they pile unnecessary work on their own shoulders. If the Government insist on this disagreement with the Lords Amendment, I hope that my hon. Friends will support me in the Lobby in opposing the Motion.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I share some of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). We are all anxious that the new body, which unhappily is to be called the Countryside Commission, should be seen to have a certain amount of independence of action. My hope is that if it is insisted that these words must go in, at least the control should never be used; that is to say, that the practice will develop of allowing the Commission to get on with such minor issues.
Hon. Members on both sides have been anxious to ensure that a certain range of work shall be taken off the Ministry, and in certain cases local authorities are to be given wider powers of discretion. We know that they are elected bodies and, therefore, in a rather different category. But we surely should be anxious to ensure that the new Commission is seen in the country to have some authority of its own. The danger of insisting upon such meticulous control from the centre is that to some extent it


inhibits the work of the Commission. It gives the impression that it has less authority than we obviously wish it to have in its dealings throughout the country. This can be damaging.
I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend, even at this stage, whether he Will not reconsider this point, which, as has been said, is a small one. It certainly does not go to the root of expenditure or any issue where we understand that decisions must be taken at Ministerial level. This is an extremely minor matter of administration. I find it hard to see how the Commission can be regarded as in any way a separate body unless it has some discretion of this kind, or unless I can have an assurance that, even if the words are written in, the control will never be used.

Mr. MacDermot: I cannot give the assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that the control will never be used, since the ground on which I am advising the House that the Amendment should be rejected is that, even if we were to accept the Amendment and delete the words, in practice the Commission would still have to come to the Ministry for the practical reason that it does not have its own establishment organisation. If the Commission sent an officer to work with a local authority and it did not arrange this in agreement with the Ministry, the

officer would not get his pay and allowances. The administration work for him will be done through our Ministry. For purely practical reasons it would be misleading for us to accept the Amendment. It would give a false picture.

When it comes to the question of the criteria which we will adopt in deciding whether to approve the terms of an agreement made between the Commission and a local authority, we have overall financial responsibilities, because these matters fall on our Vote, but naturally we shall pay great attention to the Commission's views. After all, this is an Amendment to a provision which we have put into the Bill to enable the Commission to second its officers in this way because we foresee that there may be many occasions on which, under the provisions of the Bill, local authorities and other bodies will need to embark on certain research or the preparation of schemes for which they will require the assistance of an officer who has special expertise which is lacking among their own staff. This will enable them to borrow the staff from the Commission on suitable terms, but, for tiie reasons which I have given, those terms, under the ordinary practice of Departments, must be approved by our Ministry.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 79.

Division No. 232.]
AYES
[8.21 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gourlay, Harry
Loughlin, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McBride, Neil


Blackburn, F.
Gregory, Arnold
McCann, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacDermot, Niail


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Boy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Haseldine, Norman
Maxwell, Robert


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, J. J.


Carmichael, Neil
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Millan, Bruce


Chapman, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dell, Edmund
Hynd, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dickens, James
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland


Dobson, Ray
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Murray, Albert


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Newens, Stan


Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
O'Malley, Brian


Eadie, Alex
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orme, Stanley


Ellis, John
Judd, Frank
Oswald, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lawson, George
Paget, R. T.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurence


Ford, Ben
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Fowler, Gerry
Lestor, Miss Joan
Pentland, Norman


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)




Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Slater, Joseph
Wellbeloved, James


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitaker, Ben


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Hn, Dr. Shirley
White, Mrs. Eirene


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Tinn, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roebuck, Roy
Varley, Eric G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Woof, Robert


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and




Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharpies, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Loveys, W. H.
Silvester, Frederick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley



Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian
Mr. Anthony Grant.


Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn

Clause 4

EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS OR SCHEMES

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 5, line 21, after "undertaking" insert:
relevant to the experimental project or scheme".

8.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment would, in precise terms, restrict the undertakings of the Commission in relation to acquiring or carrying on any business but experimental schemes or projects. It was never the intention of the Government that these activities should be carried on otherwise than in connection with the main purpose of the Clause. This is in the nature of a belt and braces Amendment, as it makes the position absolutely clear.

Mr, Channon: I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the attitude

which he has taken and for making this crystal clear. I am sure it is an improvement to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

POWER TO PROVIDE COUNTRY PARKS

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 9, line 5, at end insert:
Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities there for within the country park are inadequate or unsatisfactory, either generally or as respects any description of accommodation, meals or refreshments, as the case may be".

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Those hon. Members who were with us during the Committee stage will remember the number of discussions we had about the provision of accommodation, meals and refreshments, and matters


of that kind. The series of Amendments which was originally moved in this connection seemed much too wide, since it referred to being satisfied about the standard of such facilities outside a countryside park. The purpose of the Government's case was to get people inside and, when they are inside, it is hoped to encourage them to stay by providing at any rate a minimum of provisions. This Amendment prevents duplication by ensuring that the authority before proceeding shall satisfy itself that within the area of a countryside park it is not engaging in unnecessary duplication. If there is a farmhouse which provides Devonshire teas, it can continue to do so if the standard is adequate. The Amendment is more restrictive and more sensible, and I hope therefore that the House will accept it.

Mr. Channon: I do not complain about the Government accepting this Amendment. We tried on two occasions in Standing Committee and Report stage to get an Amendment in almost precisely similar terms accepted. On both occasions we were voted down by the Government. I am most grateful for the common sense of their Lordships and Ministers in the other place and the common sense of Ministers in this House which has led them to accept the Amendment. It will be welcomed, and I am sure it will help the operation of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8

COUNTRY PARKS: SAILING, BOATING, BATHING AND FISHING

Lords Amendment: No. 6: In page 10, line 30, after "with" insert:
and seek the consent of, any river authority having functions relating to the sea or other waters in question, and of

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be convenient to the House to consider at the same time the following Amendments:
No. 7, in page 10, line 34, leave out from "effect" to end of line 35 and insert:

where any authority so consulted withhold their consent
No. 10, in Clause 12, page 13, line 40, after "with" insert:
and seek the consent of, any river authority having functions relating to the sea or other waters in question and of
No. 11, in Clause 12, page 13, line 44, leave out from "effect" to end of line 45 and insert:
where any authority so consulted withhold their consent
No. 18, in Clause 14, page 16, line 43, after "with" insert:
and seek the consent of, any river authority having functions relating to the river or canal in question and of
No. 19, in Clause 14, page 17, line 3, leave out from "effect" to end of line 4 and insert:
where any authority so consulted withhold their consent
No. 44, in Clause 44, page 40, line 38, at end insert:
'river authority' means a river authority constituted by or under the Water Resources Act 1963 and the Conservators of the River Thames, the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board and the Isle of Wight River and Water Authority
No. 46, in Schedule 1, page 42, line 7, leave out "object" and insert "withhold their consent"
No. 47, in Schedule 1, page 42, line 8, leave out:
and the objection is not withdrawn
and No. 48 in Schedule 1, page 42, line 10, leave out "objection" and insert "grounds for withhholding consent" all of which relate to the same point.

Mrs. White: We are greatly obliged. Although this seems to be a formidable list of Amendments, they deal in fact with two points only. One is in relation to river authorities and the other is the substitution of the words "withholding consent" for the word "object".
The effect of the Amendments is to require local authorities or local planning authorities when exercising their powers to provide facilities for water-based recreation in waters that are comprised in or bounded by country parks or national parks, or in arranging access to waterways brought within the definition of "open country" to consult with and seek the consent of
any river authority having functions relating to the sea or other waters in question",


and
of such other authorities being authorities which under any enactment have functions relating to the sea or other waters in question as the Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct.
In other words, local authorities and local planning authorities now have to consult and seek the consent of all river authorities—not merely such authorities as the Minister may direct—in addition to such other authorities as the Minister may direct.
If the river authority or any other authority withholds its consent, the provisions of Schedule I will operate so as to provide that in no circumstances shall proposals be proceeded with unless the Minister so directs. In issuing any such direction, the Minister is obliged to consider the proposals and the reasons for withholding consent.
That covers all the Amendments down to No. 44, which is a definition of "river authority" and is necessary to cover the references in the earlier Clauses. When these Amendments were accepted in another place, at one moment there was some slight apprehension on the part of the County Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association that they might be at some disadvantage. However, I can assure the House that, after some correspondence, they have expressed their complete satisfaction with the proposed Amendments, which I hope the House will agree we should accept.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for moving the acceptance of these Amendments, because I was very interested in them during the Committee stage. However, I would appreciate some further explanation from her about the registration of boats. Will a local authority now have to ask the river authority before it registers boats?

Mrs. White: I know that the hon. Lady is very interested in the registration of boats. Clause 8 is concerned with sailing, boating, bathing, fishing, and all other matters connected therewith, and, as far as I can tell, I think that the matter which concerns her would be covered by these Amendments, though obviously not in particular detail. One does not have to consult about every in-

dividual boat. However, I think that the principle is all right.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Subject to what the hon. Lady has said about boats, we on this side of the House are glad that the Government have accepted their Lordships' Amendment which deals with river authorities. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends made these points at various stages, and we are pleased with the speech that the hon. Lady has just made.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 11, line 6, at end insert "or section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 (control of harbour development)".

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that it might be convenient if, with it, we were to discuss Lords Amendment No. 13, Clause 12, in page 14, line 23, at end insert "or section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.

Mrs. White: This Amendment provides that, under Section 9 of the Harbours Act, 1964, the Minister of Transport may make orders prohibiting without his consent certain harbour works costing more than £500,000. It is most unlikely that any works costing this amount would be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill, but it is just conceivable that they might be, and the Ministry of Transport was anxious that we should make this provision, because the legislation may last for quite a long while and one cannot foresee all possible future circumstances.
There is a precedent in the Brighton Marina Act of this year.
It is felt that it would be safer to have this provision in the Bill and I therefore hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10

CAMPING AND PICNIC SITES

Lords Amendment No. 9: In page 12, line 14, at end insert:
,—with space for parking vehicles and a means of access to and from a road.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to empower local authorities when providing camps within the terms of the Clause to provide space for parking vehicles and a means of access to and from a road. It may be thought that since there is reference to tents in the Clause the provisions specifically covered in the Amendment might not be possible. This is not the case; in fact, the power is fully contained in subsection (1), and it should be, because many people who camp today do so with motor cars and it is quite proper and sensible to make provision for motor vehicles at the same time as provision is made for temporary places for tents. However, the Amendment makes the position crystal clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 12

FACILITIES IN OR NEAR NATIONAL PARKS

Lords Amendment No. 12: In page 14, line 20, at end insert:
( ) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 13 of the Act of 1949 (carrying out of work on behalf of local planning authority by some other authority) shall apply to any part of the

"A.—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park shall have power to make byelaws for the prohibition or restriction of traffic of any description on any lake in the National Park.


5
(2) The power shall be exercisable for the purpose of—



(a) ensuring the safety of persons resorting to any such lake



(b) regulating all forms of sport or recreation involving the use of boats or vessels,


10
(c) conserving the amenity and natural beauty of any such lake and the surrounding area, and



(d) preventing nuisance or damage, and in particular nuisance from excessive noise.



(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, byelaws under this section may—


20
(a) prescribe rules of navigation and impose speed limits,


(b) require the use of effectual silencers on boats or vessels propelled by internal combustion engines, and prescribe rules with a view to imposing limits on the noise or vibration which may be caused by any such boat or vessel,


(c) prohibit the use of boats or vessels which are not for the time being registered with the local planning authority in such manner as the byelaws may provide,

sea bounding a National Park as they apply to a waterway.

Mrs. White: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to empower local planning authorities providing recreational facilities in the sea bounding National Parks to enter into agreements with any other authority, for example, a harbour authority, on which powers to carry out works in the sea are conferred under any other enactment, whereby that other authority may act on their behalf. The Amendment was tabled at the request of the Ministry of Transport. Without it, it would not be possible to have the kind of agreement which might be advantageous, except in respect of waterways other than the sea. The Amendment will enable this kind of agreement to be made for works connected with the sea. It is a practical and sensible Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause A

LAKES IN NATIONAL PARKS: CONTROL OF BOATS, ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 14: In page 14, line 23, at end insert Clause A:

25
(d) authorise the making of reasonable charges in respect of the registration of boats or vessels in pursuance of the byelaws,


30
(e) make different provision for different circumstances, and in particular may impose different restrictions in different parts of the lake and at different times or seasons.


35
(4) In acting under this section the local planning authority shall have regard to the fulfilment of the objects set out as respects National Parks in sections 1 and 5 of the Act of 1949, and, before making any byelaws, shall consult the Commission.


40
(5) Byelaws under this section shall not be made so as to extinguish any public right of way over any waters, but, except as otherwise expressly provided, any byelaws under this section shall apply to persons exercising any such public right of way as they apply to other persons.


(6) Byelaws under this section—


45
(a) shall be of no effect if and in so far as inconsistent with any rules under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which are in force as respects the water to which the byelaws apply,


(b) shall not interfere with any functions relating to the water or land to which the byelaws apply which are exercisable by any authority under any enactment.


50
(7) This section shall not apply to any lake owned or managed by a river authority or by any statutory undertakers.


(8) Section 106 of the Act of 1949 (supplementary provisions as to byelaws) shall have effect as if byelaws under this section were byelaws under that Act.


55
(9) Subsections (1) and (2), and subject to the next following subsection subsection (4), of section 92 of the Act of 1949 (appointment of wardens of land for which byelaws may be made under section 90 of that Act) shall have effect as if the power of making byelaws conferred by this section was contained in the said section 90.


60
(10) For the purpose of securing compliance with any byelaws made under this section, a warden appointed under the said section 92 as applied by this section may enter upon any land, or go on any water, whether or not within the area where the byelaws are in force.


65
(11) Where two or more local planning authorities' areas consist of or include part of a National Park, the powers conferred by this section may be exercised by them, or any of them, jointly, or may by agreement between them be exercised by one local planning authority in the part of the National Park in the area of another.


70
(12) Byelaws made by a local planning authority under this section may be enforced by any local authority in the area of that other local authority.


75
(13) In this section "lake" includes any expanse of water other than a river or canal."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, after ' lake', insert—
'to which the public have access'.
I hesitate to stop the headlong rush with which we are satisfactorily disposing of this part of the Bill, but there is one point which requires an answer from the Government.
The House will be aware that the Clause will give powers to local authori-

ties to make byelaws for the prohibition or restriction of traffic of any description on any lake in a National Park. Further than that, subsection (13) provides that:
In this section 'lake' includes any expanse of water other than a river or canal".
Therefore, the Bill as it will read amended will mean that if anybody owns a pond or a small lake in a National Park—if any association such as the Birmingham Anglers' Association owns such a lake or pond—it will be subject to local byelaws in this respect.
The words
traffic of any description in a lake in a National Park
could mean a row-boat as well as a motor boat. My hon. Friends and I have extreme sympathy with the Amendment to the extent that it seeks to do away with noise in an area of scenic beauty such as a National Park. I appreciate the danger concerning noise, but I also see the danger of unnecessary interference by local authorities in respect of a pond or lake of only a few acres, and especially in respect of the sort of row-boat traffic to which I have referred.
Will the hon. Lady explain whether or not I have read the Clause correctly? If I have, does she not think that these anxieties will be felt by those who own ponds or lakes in National Parks? In the Principality of Wales, which we both know well, the areas now covered by National Parks are very large—in many ways this is a happy event—and the Government lead us to believe that they will be made even larger. Therefore, over half the Principality might be covered in this way. This may be a particularly Celtic question.

8.45 p.m.

Mrs. White: We can all sympathise with the hon. Member's apprehensions, although I believe that they are not well-founded. It might be of assistance if I referred to the scope of any byelaws which are likely to be made under the new Clause, with which we ask the House to agree. The Home Office is the confirming Department for such bye-laws and has advised us that not only do any byelaws have to conform to the specific matters in the Clause—that is, they must be intra vires—but they must also satisfy other criteria.
The Home Office must be satisfied that the byelaws are reasonable. If one is to be enforced, particular account must be taken of whether the general disadvantage of multiplying restrictions and regulations is outweighed in the particular instance by the convenience to the community which results. In other words, it would normally be unreasonable for byelaws to be made in respect of a very small pond. The Home Office must also be satisfied that any such byelaws would not be oppressive to particular classes of the community. That also would cover

some of the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman might have in mind.
Furthermore, any byelaws should not impose any greater restriction or requirement than is necessary to secure the object in view. One would not want elaborate byelaws in a situation in which the most one was concerned about was nuisance from noise. Finally, the byelaws must enable those to whom they apply to be able to comply with them in ordinary circumstances. In other words, someone could not ride a hobbyhorse and propose a byelaw if the Home Office did not feel that people could reasonably be expected to comply in ordinary circumstances.
It is with all these safeguards in mind that the proposal should be considered. What makes it difficult to accept the Amendment is that we believe that, in some circumstances, it could be strongly in the public interest to make a byelaw affecting a lake to which the public did not have formal access. The most obvious thing is the possibility of noise nuisance, which could affect a considerable area even though its performance was confined to the stretch of water.
In practice any such byelaws would be accepted and confirmed only if it could be shown that there was either some positive danger to the public or a nuisance of a kind so intense and intolerable that the criteria I have described—reasonableness, and so forth—might fairly apply. The new Clause was put down after strong pressure in Committee in a Government endeavour to meet the views expressed, and because the Amendment to line 4 would weaken the new Clause unnecessarily, I must advise the House not to accept it. Having described the background to the byelaw making power suggested in our new Clause, I hope the House will agree that this is the proper course to take.

Mr. John Smith: I have a good deal of sympathy with the intention of the new Clause, as I have with most of the Lords Amendments. Indeed, when the other place is under a cloud in some quarters, it is notable that it has made 54 Amendments to the Bill and that the Government propose to accept all but five. The hon. Lady was very reasonable when she explained why she cannot consent to our


Amendment to the new Clause, but I think that, while the intention of the new Clause is reasonable, this is the wrong way to carry it out; if it is proposed to put extra restrictions on land in national parks which is not the property of a state body, then it should be done explicitly, and possibly should refer to all land and not only to land covered with water. But I could not accept the new Clause unamended yet still retaining subsection (7).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the moment we are not discussing the new Clause but only the limited part of it which falls under the proposed Amendment to line 4.

Mr. Smith: As the Clause stands, statutory undertakers, even though the public do have access to their water, are excluded from the provisions, whereas individual owners, even though the public do not have access to their water, are included. This is a glaring example of the double standard being increasingly applied to property owners, under which the individual is assumed to be by nature bad and the State and public bodies are assumed to be by nature good. This is not always the case, particularly when it comes to amenity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's argument would be much more appropriate on the question of whether the House should agree or disagree with the Lords Amendment. The proposed Amendment to line 4 of the Lords Amendment is a very narrow point.

Mr. Smith: I do not want to make a large number of speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so perhaps I may be allowed to say that the new Clause as it stands further enhances the double standard adopted towards owners of property and that, if our Amendment to line 4 were accepted, the new Clause would be improved at least to a small degree in that respect.

Mr. Jopling: I well understand the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and he was quite right to draw attention to them. The criteria which the Home Office will use and which the hon. Lady has explained have gone quite some way

to relieve my fears, but I must point out that one of my reasons for moving my new Clause in Committee and on Report was to try to prevent undue commercialisation of and undue new activity on some of our private lakes, particularly in the Lake District.
I understand that Loweswater, Butter-mere, Bassenthwaite and Rydal Water are all private lakes. They are owned by people who have no intention of introducing obnoxious forms of water sport which would, in some cases, be most unhappy. But if someone bought Rydal Water and wanted to start a private water skiing club, I understand that until this Clause becomes law there is nothing to prevent that being done. It was to prevent that sort of thing happening on these marvellous small lakes that we have in the Lake District, of which Rydal Water is probably the classic example, that I moved my new Clause in the first place. This is the other side of the coin to that given by my hon. Friend earlier. I hope that the hon. Lady's explanations will be enough to induce my hon. Friends not to press the matter to a Division.

Mrs. White: The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) is mistaken in his remark about the double standard. The fact is that various statutory bodies—the river authorities, the internal drainage boards, the conservancy boards, British Waterways, and so on—have other byelaw making powers, and it is largely for that reason that they are excluded from the provisions of the Clause.
I would remind the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that we have similar lakes in Snowdonia, about which I am very much concerned.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: With the leave of the House. I confess now to feeling somewhat like Solomon. The hon. Lady's first explanation boiled down to the Home Office having told her that it would be all right in the end, because the Home Office would only settle for anything put up by a local authority if the proposal was sensible.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and I are agreed that as the Clause is now drafted it means that any piece of water, however small, which


is in private hands will be liable to bye-laws by the local authority. My hon. Friends and I cannot accept that state of things. I do not want to make too much of it. I have spoken about the noise question, which has also been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).
Having weighed things up, I come down on the side, not necessarily of the angels but of those hon. Members who

feel that this is an invasion, and something which could have been avoided had the Government decided to redraft the Clause in a different way. As the Clause is now drafted, I have no option but to advise my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 125.

Division No. 233.]
AYES
[8.59 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Batsford, Brian
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Francis


Brewis, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Channon, H. p. G.
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharpies, Richard


Costain, A P.
Loveys, w. H.
Silvester, Frederick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minstcr)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Glyn, Sir Richard
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Weatherill, Bernard


Gurden, Harold
Nicholis, Sir Harmar
WhiteIaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Onslow, Cranley
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oeborn, John (Hallam)



Hawkins, Paul
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian
Mr. Timothy Kitson.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
McBride, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McCann, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gregory, Arnold
MacDermot, Niall


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McGuire, Michael


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Manuel, Archie


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hazell, Bert
Maxwell, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mendelson, J. J.


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hoy, James
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Milne, Edward (BIyth)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dell, Edmund
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Moyle, Roland


Dickens, James
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Murray, Albert


Dobson, Ray
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Newens, Stan


Doig, Peter
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, T. Alee (Rhondda, West)
O'Malley, Brian


Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frark
Orme, Stanley


Ellis, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Oswald, Thomas


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lawson, George
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Fernyhough, E.
Leadbitter, Ted
Paget, R. T.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pavitt, Laurence


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus
Pentland, Norman


Fowler, Gerry
Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)




Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Whitaker, Ben


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
White, Mrs. Eirene


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Symonds, J. B.
Wilkins, W. A.


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Roebuck, Roy
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Urwin, T. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Skeffington, Arthur
Wallace, George
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 35, at end insert:
'and any district council in whose area the lake is situated'.
The new Clause vests in the Planning Board powers to regulate boating. I know that it is arguable whether the Planning Board should have these powers, but I believe that it should. Some people believe that the powers should not be vested in a non-elected body such as the Planning Board, but I think that it is right that district councils should not have the right to make these powers. However, there would be tremendous confusion on a lake like Ullswater, where three district councils are involved. It is essential that in promulgating bye-laws the Planning Board should consult the county district councils.
Windermere Urban District Council not only owns the bed of Lake Winder-mere. It also deals with moorings on the bed of the lake. It is directly concerned with the boating industry which exists around the lake. It has a great interest in the happenings on the lake and in control over the lake. My view is that the council ought to be consulted by the planning board at an early stage when byelaws are being drawn up.
Under the new Clause as it stands, a planning board has to consult the Commission and the Home Secretary has to confirm the proposed byelaws. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary would consult district councils at that stage, but I should much prefer the district councils to be consulted by the planning board at the outset. My Amendment would make it mandatory to consult district councils affected right from the start of the evolution of byelaws.
In the Lake District, full consultation takes place between the planning board and the district councils, and I believe that it will continue. I have spoken to the clerk to the Lake District Planning

Board on the matter, and he has assured me that, if the new Clause goes through, there will be the fullest consultation between the planning board and, for example, Windermere Urban District Council when byelaws are being drafted. But we are legislating for the future. In 20 or 30 years, relations between the planning boards and district councils, if they still exist in their present form, may deteriorate, and consultation may not be as effective as it is now or as we reasonably expect it to be if the Clause is enacted.
I understand that my Amendment is acceptable to the Lake District Planning Board. I have spoken to the Clerk about that. If it were adopted, it would be welcomed by the district councils which have lakes within their boundaries, and, what is more, in my own constituency, for instance, the Royal Winder-mere Yacht Club would very much welcome such an Amendment. I have had a letter from the club telling me that.
The Minister has told us that, after the Bill is passed, a circular will go out from the Ministry asking planning boards to consult district councils. But this is not enough. If the Government are prepared to issue a circular on the subject, they should be prepared to go the whole hog and write into the Clause an instruction to planning boards to consult district councils which are involved.

Mrs. White: We have the fullest sympathy with the object expressed by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). We fully appreciate his concern, particularly as regards Windermere, where the urban district council has a rather special position and where, if there were no consultation, there would be, so to speak, a storm on the lake. But his Amendment raises a question which we discussed on many occasions at earlier stages, the question of particularising in the Bill itself.
We are strongly in favour of a local planning authority initiating byelaws under the Clause consulting the appropriate district councils, but there might well be parish councils and other bodies which wished to be consulted. Although we understand that in the peculiar circumstances of Windermere the urban district council looms large, elsewhere in the country other appropriate authorities might demand consultation.
In our view, the proposal as it stands is the more satisfactory, and we should not particularise in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. A firm undertaking has been given, and I repeat it, that administrative action will be taken to advise all local planning authorities that they should seek these consultations at the earliest possible moment. They are all the more likely to do so because the local authorities, district councils and others, will have the opportunity to make their views known to the Home Office before any byelaws can be confirmed.
9.15 p.m.
There cannot be any sort of hole-in-the-corner about this. If byelaws are to be confirmed, notice must be given and it will be open to the district councils, as to other local government authorities and other interested bodies to make their views clearly and firmly known to the Home Office.
I repeat that we are entirely in sympathy with the object of the Amendment, but, as we have said in the past more than once, we feel that it is not desirable to particularise in this way. A similar situation arises on development plans. In dealing with this rather narrow issue of planning authorities initiating byelaws for lakes in National Parks, we should not do something contrary to the generally accepted principle of administration in these matters.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: We are back to the Home Office again. It is being a little overworked in all this, and the object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to avoid

that. If the Amendment were made, before making any byelaws local authorities should consult the Commission and any district council in whose area the lake is situated. If the discussions took place at that level, the matter need never go to the Home Office.

Mrs. White: It is the Home Office which must confirm any proposed byelaw. It must give public notice, and objections can be submitted to it before it confirms the byelaw. It is that kind of byelaw.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I appreciate that the hon. Lady has more experience than I have in this matter, but would not it be much easier to get the objections settled at local level and to write into the Bill that the district councils must be brought in at that early stage? We should then avoid a great deal of unnecessary toing and froing and trouble.
I see nothing wrong with the Amendment. My hon. Friend is not particularising. He is speaking of any district council, not just the district council of Windermere but any district council in whose area the lake is situated.
I know that the Minister thinks that she has given us a satisfactory answer, but she has not satisfied my hon. Friends and me.

Mr. Jopling: I am most disappointed by what the Minister said, and I very much agree with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt). It is far better that there should be the fullest possible local consultation before such byelaws go to the Home Office. If we all agree this, why not write it into the Bill?
The explanations given are quite unsatisfactory, and I shall press the matter to a Division. I hope that my hon. Friends will join me.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided; Ayes 85, Noes 126.

Division No. 234.]
AYES
[9.19 p.m.


Allason, Jimes (Hemel Hempstead)
Channon, H. P. G.
Gibson-Watt, David


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Clark, Henry
Clyn, Sir Richard


Batsford, Brian
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Boardman Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Grieve, Percy


Brewis, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Gurden, Harold


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Foster, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)




Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas


Hawkins, Paul
May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sharples, Richard


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Silvester, Frederick


Hill, J. E. B.
More, Jasper
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Holland, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Hunt, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Kitson, Timothy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lane, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Loveys, W. H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lubbock, Eric
Pym, Francis
Mr. Anthony Grant and


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Hector Monro.


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Armstrong, Ernest
Hoy, James
Paget, R. T.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Beaney, Alan
Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Booth, Albert
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin. John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchan, Norman
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Lawson, George
Roebuck, Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Edmund
Liptcn, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Skeffington, Arthur


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McBride, Neil
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Eadie, Alex
McCann, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Symonds, J. B.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn,James


Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
MacPherson, Malcoim
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Varley, Eric G.


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fowler, Gerry
Mendelson, J. J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wellbeloved, James


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitaker, Ben


Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hannan, William
Murray, Albert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefieid)
Newens, Stan
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Haseldine, Norman
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Woof, Robert


Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian



Hcrbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Horner, John
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Mr. Joseph Harper.

Motion made, and Questtion proposed. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mrs. White.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not think that we should pass this without expressing our warm thanks, I hope from both sides of the House, for the great efforts made

by the Ministry in drafting this Lords Amendment. The drafting of such an Amendment was felt by many people to be impossible at one stage. It was felt impossible to reconcile the conflicting interests involved. This has been a problem over a long period of years, and it has defeated many who have tried to solve it. It is only right to say that there


are many people in the Lakes areas who are delighted that this Amendment should have been passed in another place. They are very happy that there seems to be some real hope that in this way we shall be able to meet the growing recreational needs without damage to all the other interests which are involved. I am sure that there are very many on both sides of the House who are delighted that this Amendment has at last been made.

Mr. John Smith: I echo, of course, what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has just said, that this Lords Amendment, if it works, will do something which we want done and which was thought to be very difficult. But in view of what the hon. Lady said earlier I must revert, briefly, to the double standard in this Clause, which is that statutory undertakers are exempted from the Clause even if the public do have access to their water, while individual owners are bound by the Clause even if the public do not have access to their water.
9.30 p.m.
The hon. Lady said that statutory undertakers have powers to make byelaws. Of course they have those powers, in the Bill, but they are powers to be used only if the statutory undertakers wish to use them. They may make byelaws. There is no guarantee that they will. I can even imagine circumstances in which the duties of the statutory undertakers conflict with the making of such byelaws and will make it difficult for them to do so.
The assumption is that individual landlords are born base and that public bodies, as landlords, are by nature virtuous. Surely it is extremely dangerous to build up an old-boy network of public bodies on the assumption, as we have heard in the speeches that have been made, that public bodies can always be relied upon to do the right thing. I firmly believe that all owners of property should be treated alike by the law. For example, I am strongly in favour of council tenants having the same security of tenure as the tenants of other landlords. While welcoming the purpose behind this Lords Amendment, I very much regret the extension of this double standard in this new Clause.

Mr. Jopling: I think that it was partly through my initiative that this new Clause has appeared, and I welcome it. It will go a long way to meet the case I asked

the Government to meet in Committee and on Report.
Reverting to subsection (7), about which I am bothered, and I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), we have had a good deal of experience of lakes in the Lake District which are owned or managed by statutory water undertakers. I would like an assurance that the lakes of Ullswater and Windermere, from which Manchester Corporation is empowered to extract 45 million gallons of water a day, will not be excluded from the provisions of this new Clause by virtue of that fact. This is an important point and I should like an assurance on it from the Government.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Although there are three points in this new Clause from another place about which we had our doubts and disagreements, in general we welcome and support it. We are grateful to the Government for the way that they have followed the discussions on both sides in Committee. Our hope is that the fears which we have expressed earlier this evening will prove groundless.

Mrs. White: We welcome the response which, on the whole, this new Clause has received. I should like to set at rest the doubts of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The fact that a statutory authority may have extraction rights does not mean that it owns or manages the lake. Therefore, the two lakes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will come within the ambit of the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B"

CONVERSION OF MOOR AND HEATH IN NATIONAL PARKS TO AGRICULTURAL LAND

Lords Amendment No. 15: In page 14, line 23, at end insert new Clause "B"—

"B.—(1) The Minister may, if satisfied that it is expedient, by order apply this section to any land in a National Park appearing to him to be predominantly moor or heath.

(2) The occupier of any land to which this section for the time being applies, and which is moor or heath which has not been agricultural land at any time within the preceding


twenty years, shall not, by ploughing, or otherwise, convert any of the land into agricultural land unless he has given six months written notice of his intention to the local planning authority.

(3) If, without the consent in writing of the local planning authority, any person fails to comply with subsection (2) above, whether by failing to give a notice, or by taking some action within the six months, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—


(a) on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £200, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(5) An order made under subsection (1) above—


(a) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made,
(b) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6) In this section"agricultural land"does not include land which affords rough grazing for livestock but is not otherwise used as agricultural land.

(7) In considering for the purposes of subsection (2) above whether land has been agricultural land within the preceding twenty years, no account shall be taken of any conversion of the land into agricultural land which was unlawful under the provisions of this section."

Read a Second time.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another matter on which I believe we have managed to find an eleventh hour solution. This Amendment deals with a problem which we discussed in Committee, but to which we did not then find a solution, namely, the weakness in our present access procedures whereby a farmer can plough up moor or heath land without notice and thereby either nullify an access agreement or effectively prevent the planning authority from making an access order. The way is now paved for a solution in consequence of the changes proposed to the Bill in Lords Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, New Clause C, which we shall be discussing later and which, if accepted, will enable a farmer to bind himself not to "except" land by ploughing it up when it is subject to an access agreement.
The Amendment proposes to empower the Minister to make an order in respect

of land situated within a National Park which appears to him to be predominantly moor or heath. When the order is made, anyone proposing to convert land covered by the order (and which has not been used for an agricultural purpose other than rough grazing during the preceding 20 years) to agricultural land other than rough grazing must give the local planning authority six months' notice of his intention. If he converts the land without giving notice, or converts it within six months without the written consent of the planning authority, he will be liable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £200, or on conviction on indictment to a fine of an unspecified amount.
Orders under the new Clause are to be made by Statutory Instrument, subject to negative Resolution. It might be helpful to the House if I indicate how we envisage this procedure will work. In the first place the Minister will have to make an order applying the section to an area of land within a National Park appearing to him to be predominantly moor or heath. We hope it will be possible to reach agreement between the local planning authority and the local agricultural interests about the area or areas of land to which such an order should apply. We accept, and I think the planning authorities in the areas concerned accept, that not all moor or heath land should be preserved, and that there are many parts of these lands which may be suitable and proper to be ploughed up. We shall try to get agreement locally first about which areas should be subject to this form of protection.
Once an order has been made, the occupier of any land to which it applies will not be able to plough up or otherwise convert the moor or heath into agricultural land until the expiry of the six months' period, unless the planning authority gives him consent within that period. If the authority does not give him consent, it will use the six months' period to try to make an access agreement with him under which, in return for a suitable consideration, he will agree not to plough up and to give access to the public. As I have said, the other Amendments to which we shall come later will enable a landowner to bind himself not to convert land into accepted land at a later date by ploughing up.
In the event of a failure to reach agreement—and I stress that it is our intention to operate these provisions by agreement; we hope and believe that that will be possible—one of two courses will be open to the planning authority. It will be able either to make an access order under Section 65 of the 1949 Act, or it may make a compulsory purchase order under Section 76 of that Act.
The fear has been expressed that after a notice has been served of an access order or compulsory purchase order the landowner may proceed to plough up before the Minister has reached a decision on the order. We do not think that that is a serious practical risk, because a farmer will be extremely unlikely to plough up unless he is assured that he will receive a grant for doing so. He will be all the more hesitant to do that if it seems that the land might be acquired before he is able to obtain any benefit from the expenditure he incurs in ploughing up. It would be an act of spite on his part to plough up in such circumstances, and I do not believe that he would act in that way.
The situation has been changed owing to the difference in the system for authorising ploughing grants. Until last year the grants were payable as of right on proof that ploughing-up had taken place, but now prior approval of the Ministry is required. Where a planning authority made an access order or a compulsory purchase order, they would notify the Ministry of Agriculture, and I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to say that in these circumstances no decision would be taken upon the application for grant until a decision had been made upon the access order or compulsory purchase order. This shows that those fears would be unreal.
We are proposing in the Amendment a standstill period of six months, during which we hope that the matter can be dealt with by agreement and by negotiation, so that in the event of a failure to reach agreement the powers which already exist can effectively be used. We all know that they have not been able, for lack of this, to be used effectively in the past.

Dame Joan Vickers: Why put in a period of time of 20 years? Is there a specific reason why the period of 20 years was chosen? Are records kept? I would much prefer not to have a number of years specified.

Mr. MacDermot: I am assured that there are records available for a 20-year period. It is felt, in order to establish this kind of protection, that it should be shown that the land has been in effect moor or heath and open and available to access to the public for a substantial period of time, and that is a period which is capable of effective enforcement administratively.

Mr. Channon: I do not wish to weary the House at this hour with a long debate on the Clause. As the Minister has said, we have had several debates on this, notably in the Standing Committee, and credit ought to be paid to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) for the in-interest that they have shown in this subject.
We should like to thank the Government for having produced a Clause which appears now to be acceptable to all the parties that are interested in this difficult and important problem. The Clause that has been put before us is, I think, satisfactory. The only thing that worries me slightly is that it is perhaps a little harsh that on conviction on indictment the penalty should be so heavy as to be an unlimited fine, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that it would be only in the rarest and most extraordinary circumstances that proceedings would be taken on indictment against someone who had behaved in this way.
It is satisfactory that an Order made under the Clause would have to be made by Statutory Instrument and that this House would have some say in the matter should on order be made.
It is generally satisfactory that the Government have been able to come forward with an agreed solution, and I very much hope that my hon. Friends will agree with their Lordships and support the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14

ACCESS TO OPEN COUNTRY: RIVERS, CANALS AND WOODLANDS

Lords Amendment No. 16; In page 16, line 31, leave out "water".

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That this this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to exclude from the provision of Clause 14 reservoirs owned or managed not merely by statutory water undertakers but by all statutory undertakers. The main purpose is to deal with the position of the British Waterways Board which owns a number of reservoirs. In Clause 47(6) of the Transport Bill provision is made for this Board to have power to provide services and facilities for amenity or recreational purposes on the waterways and the reservoirs owned or managed by them. If we did not make this Amendment then we should have the unsatisfactory position that public money might be provided from two sources, one under the Transport Bill and one under this Bill.
9.44 p.m.
Where a statutory undertaker has both powers and finance provided under other legislation, we see no point in providing under the Bill for a further subvention through local authorities, with appropriate grants. Therefore, we ask the House to agree with this Amendment, which has the effect of bringing British Waterways reservoirs into line with the position already afforded to British Waterways canals under the Clause as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 16, line 39, leave out from "river" to end of line 42 and insert:
(including any expanse of water through which a river, or some part of the flow of a river runs) or any canal".

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We have been advised that this Amendment is desirable to provide for situations where otherwise it might not be possible to deal with land adjacent to

canals; for example, in a situation where the British Waterways Board owned the canal and the towpath on one side of it but had no control of the land on the other side which might nevertheless be desirable.
This Amendment has been tabled at the request of the Ministry of Transport, which assures us that it will be for the better administration of the purposes of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 20: In page 17, line 14, leave out "three" and insert "four".

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested that, with this Amendment, we take No. 21, after Clause 15, in page 18, line 34, at end insert new Clause "C" (Access agreements: undertakings by landowners and others not to convert land into excepted land).

Mr. MacDermot: These are the Amendments to which I referred just now and which will enable a landowner to bind himself to refrain from actions which would render the land "excepted" and not open to public access. The local planning authority would be able to recognise this additional factor in determining the terms on which the agreement is negotiated.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

AMENDMENTS OF ACT OF 1949

Lords Amendment No. 22: Page 19, line 28, at end insert:
( ) In section 51(1) of the Act of 1949 (general provisions as to long distance routes) after the word ' horseback' there shall be inserted the words ' or on a bicycle not being a motor vehicle'.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This enables the Countryside Commission to take the needs of pedal cyclists


into account when considering proposals for long distance routes. It is pre-cedented in the Scottish Act.

Mr. Channon: We strongly support this Amendment, and are glad that their Lordships made it. It will be welcomed particularly by the Youth Hostels Association and others interested in long distance: routes. However, the Parliamentary Secretary must not quote the Scottish Act too much, otherwise he may weaken his case rather than strengthen it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT WATER UNDERTAKERS' RESERVOIRS AND OTHER WATERS

Lords Amendment No. 23: In page 21, line 38, at end insert:
( ) Where, by provision contained in, or having effect under, any enactment concerning a reservoir or other waterway owned or managed by statutory water undertakers, some other statutory water undertakers are liable to contribute to the costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the reservoir or other waterway, the undertakers may make arrangements for sharing any expenditure incurred in, and any receipts arising from, the exercise of the powers conferred by this section.

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is to meet the situation in which a. reservoir might be undertaken by more than one authority. Although it is more usual that it should be under the control, management or ownership of one authority only, situations have arisen in which the construction is a joint effort. There is one instance of it at the moment to which our attention has been drawn. Therefore, it seems that the provisions of the Clause should be shared, if so desired, and financial arrangements should be made accordingly between the respective undertakers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20

PROVISION OF FACILITIES BY FORESTY COMMISSIONERS

Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 22, line 10, leave out "viewpoint stances" and insert "places for enjoying views".

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is drafting, but I hope that the House will think that it is rather more elegant language to use the words on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Channon: This is an example where the English are ahead of the Scots, who have these very ugly words in their Act. We welcome the provision of good English in the English legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

SIGNPOSTING OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

Lords Amendment No. 25: In page 25, line 32, after "meeting" insert "for the parish".

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we will take Amendment No. 26, in page 25, line 34, after "be" insert "the chairman of".

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These are drafting Amendments. We are grateful to the Parish Councils Association for drawing our attention to the need for them. The first corrects a situation in which it might appear that a site was situated in a parish meeting and the second provides that consent shall be given by the person who is consulted anyway—the chairman of the parish council.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

DUTY TO MAINTAIN STILES, ETC. ON FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

Lords Amendment No. 27: In page 26, line 29, after "contributions" insert
of such amount in each case as they shall, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable ".

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to move the Amendment in lieu of the Amendment at this time?

Mr. Speaker: I am guided by the House. We can discuss with the Motion already moved the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment in lieu of it and the Amendment to the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon).

Mr. Channon: If that were to be the proposed arrangement, would there be an opportunity for us to vote on our Amendment to the Government Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. First, does the hon. Member want a Division on the Motion to disagree?

Mr. Channon: I have no wish to divide on the Motion to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment; the only matter in respect of which we may wish to divide is on our Amendment to the Government Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: First, we had better get out of the way the Motion, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: The reason for my Motion is a drafting one. This Lords Amendment is now overtaken by the Government Amendment which proposes to substitute a new subsection (3) in place of the present subsections (3) and (4).
I hope that the House will agree that whatever we decide about the Opposition Amendment to the Government Amendment it is an improvement on the existing subsections (3) and (4). It makes much clearer the solution that we want to achieve, namely, that a highway authority

shall be bound to contribute a certain proportion—we propose one-quarter—of any expenses which are shown to its satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred. Secondly, it provides that it shall have power to make further contributions to such amount as in each case it shall consider to be reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances. The Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment makes that abundantly clear.
The House will remember that we discussed this matter at length on Report, when I suggested that there were two possible solutions, either of which would be acceptable to the Government in principle. The first was to have a fixed percentage—50 per cent.—and the other to have a minimum percentage of 25 per cent., with a discretion to the local authority to go higher, up to 100 per cent.
I recommended the second solution, and that is the one I still recommend. There are occasions when local authorities make a 100 per cent. contribution and it is desirable that they should be able to continue to do so where they think it is proper. I can envisage cases in which it will be proper to make a 100 per cent. contribution—for example, where a recently erected stile had been knocked down by a flagrant act of vandalism and there was no reason to expect the farmer to pay for a replacement. If there is to be this discretion, we should not fix the minimum contribution as high as 50 per cent. We remain of the view that, in these circumstances, if the right solution is flexibility, as I believe, the minimum should be a quarter, leaving the authority free to pay more if it thinks it right.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to, Amendment No. 6, in page 26, line 28, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert:
(3) The highway authority shall contribute not less than a quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred in compliance with subsection (1) above, and shall have power to make further contributions of such amount in each case as they shall, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, leave out 'quarter' and insert 'half'.


We were naturally sorry to hear that the Government have not moved in this matter, since our opinion has not changed either. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman argued cogently that there will be cases in which enlightened local authorities will pay up to 100 per cent., our experience is that the vast majority will be much more likely to think of the figure of a quarter as a maximum, although the Bill specifically provides that it is a minimum.
There are two particular areas in which expense will be great. First of all, in those areas where the stiles and footpaths are being reopened in large numbers, which are often the marginal upland areas—the Secretary of State for Wales will know what I mean—this will be very expensive. I would have thought that a 50-50 minimum would have been been much fairer to the farming community.
The Government Front Bench have heard our arguments many times and I am sorry that they have not altered their view. During discussions on the

Bill they have been in some difficulty over the provision of money and it was made clear in Committee by the hon. and learned Gentleman that the monies which it had been hoped to find will not now all be available. So he may be hesitant to ask local authorities, in addition to finding money for signposts, to find also a high percentage for stiles. But the farmer also has his problems and the Government could have given rather more equity between him and the local authority. That is the reason for this Amendment.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 120.

Division No. 235.]
 AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brewis, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, B. (Olclham, W.)
Jopiing, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerehaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis


Clark, Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Diecles, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharpies, Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, W. H.
Silvester, Frederick


Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Flatcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen 
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minater)


Foster, Sir John 
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Gibson-Watt, David 
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Clyn, Sir Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Grieve, Percy 
Mills, Peter (Torrtngton)
Turton, nt. Hn. R. H.


Crlmond, Rt. Hn. J.
Monro, Hector
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hill, J. E. B.
Onstow, Cranley
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Holland, Philip 
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Hordem, Peter
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Anthony Grant and




Mr. Timothy Kitson. 


NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Hugh D, (G'gow, Provan)
Dickens, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Ray


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Doig, Peter


Butter, William
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coe, Denis
Ellis, John


Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D.
Fernyhough, E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)


Brcughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dell, Edmund
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)




Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Loughlin, Charles
Roebuck, Roy


Calpern, Sir Myer
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Gourlay, Harry
McCann, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Gregory, Arnold
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Skeffington, Arthur


Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Joseph


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, J. J.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Haseldine, Norman
Millan, Bruce
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Milne, Edward (Biyth)
Tinn, James


Homer, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Varley, Eric G.


Hoy, James
Morrle, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hunter, Adam
Murray, Albert
Wallace, George


Hynd, John
Newens, Stan
Watkins, David (Consett)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.) 
Wellbeloved, James


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian
Whitaker, Ben


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley
White, Mrs. Eirene


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Woof, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)



Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lestor, Miss Joan
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. Neil McBride.

Proposed Amendment made to the Bill.

Lords Amendment No. 28: In page 26, line 37, at end insert:
or if any conditions for the maintenance of the structure are for the time being in force under section 126 of the Highways Act 1959 (authority for erection of stiles etc.)

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is a saving for any maintenance conditions that may have been laid down where a stile, gate or other work on a footpath has been authorised under Section 126 of the Highways Act, 1959.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause D

RIDING OF PEDAL BICYCLES ON BRIDLEWAYS

Lords Amendment No. 34: After Clause 26, page 28, line 10, at end insert new Clause "D":
 D.—(1) Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

(2) Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws.

(3) The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists.

(4) Subsection (1) above shall not affect any definition of "bridleway" in this or any other Act.

(5) In this and the next following section "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1960.

(6) It is hereby declared that sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the said Act of 1960 (offences connected with riding of bicycles) apply to bridleways as being highways which are "roads" within the meaning of that Act.

(7) Section 12(1) of the said Act (prohibition of cycle racing on highways) shall have effect as if the expression"public highway"included a bridleway, but without the exception for a race or trial authorised by regulations under that section."

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment made: In subsection (5) leave out ' and the next following'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall the various attempts to bring some relief to that very hard-pressed section of users of the highway, pedal cyclists. I shall not go through all the attempts we have made to achieve this very desirable objective, but I hope that the House will agree that as a result


of consultations and further thought this new Clause would give a considerable measure of relief in that it would permit in suitable circumstances cyclists to ride on footpaths and bridleways. There are various savings in the subsections. Subsection (1) gives the public a right to ride a bicycle on any bridleway and protects the prior rights of walkers and horse riders by requiring the cyclists to
give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback ".
It also excludes "motor vehicles". We ought to provide some relief to cyclists while at the same time ensuring that the prior users for whom the powers were originally provided should have their rights maintained.
Subsection (2) preserves the effect of any traffic orders or byelaws made by local authorities or others restricting the use of bridleways. Subsection (3) pre-vents increased standards of maintenance being required because of use by cyclists. Subsection (4) maintains the present definition of "bridleway" which is in the Highways Act. Subsection (5) applies the meaning of "motor vehicle" in the Road Traffic Act 1960. Subsection (6) deals with unreasonable behaviour and is taken from the well stated and exercised law in the Road Traffic Act, Sections 9, 10, 11 and 13.
The previous draft Clauses giving cyclists the right to ride on footpaths were considered to be too onerous on the landowner, to give rise to a possible danger to other users, and, when a requirement was included requiring the Cyclist to dismount when passing other users, to be impracticable.

Mr. Channon: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is wise not to go through the details of projects which have been discussed on this matter, because some of them are the most ludicrous I have

heard since I have been in this House. On the whole, this is a satisfactory compromise which has been arrived at, although it could cause considerable inconvenience to some farmers. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has received a letter from one, who says:
In my own case, which is by no means exceptional, it will mean that flocks of 50 (or more) cyclists will be entitled to ride through the collecting area of a newly built yard and parlour, and more than 1½ miles of bridleway traversing the permanent pastures which form the grazing grounds for over 100 cows. Only another farmer could tell you what the result of this invasion is likely to have on the herd, the herdsman and all those in any way concerned for the well-being of the farming industry.
This provision could cause considerable difficulty to farmers were it not for the fact that subsection (2) empowers local authorities to make appeals. I hope the Government will consider it advisable for powers to be given to local authorities to make appeals in order that people like the farmer whose letter I have quoted, who has a very genuine case, will not be put to inconvenience by the passing of the new Clause.
Although I am not completely happy about this matter, I accept that it is the best that can be achieved at this moment. I advise my hon. Friends to accept the compromise Clause.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will perambulators come under the byelaws? There is no mention of them. What preference will a perambulator have over a horse or a bicycle? This is important, because many people push prams.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should have to have another Amendment to deal with perambulators.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause E

WHEELING OF PEDAL BICYCLES ON FOOTPATHS

Lords Amendment No. 35: After Clause 26, in page 28, line 10, at end insert new Clause "E":
Any member of the public shall, subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws, have the right to wheel a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any footpath.

Read a Second time.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps I can take up the question about perambulators asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers). The reason why we have suggested that we should not clutter up the Bill with this further provision is that, if the additional qualification is made that a bicycle can be wheeled along a footpath, the question arises whether a pram can be wheeled on a footpath or whether something else with four wheels can be pushed on a footpath, and so on. The position, broadly speaking, is that anyone can take anything on to a footpath, unless there is a byelaw saying that he cannot. How he behaves when he is on the footpath may be the subject of byelaws, or it may be the subject of Common law.
It has been held—I refer the hon. Lady to Pratt and Mackenzie's Law of Highways—that the wheeling of prams in normal circumstances—I am not exactly certain what that means—along a footpath is perfectly permissible. A pedestrian can take anything he likes. Although cyclists have often been prohibited, there is nothing to prevent a walker from carrying his bicycle.
For all these reasons, we get into ine-extricable complexities if we put a provision such as this into the Bill. I assure the hon. Lady that perambulators normally are perfectly in order. I am glad that she raised this example. It is for this reason that we do not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Channon: A little reluctantly, I again follow the Government's advice.

The new Clause was moved in another place by my noble Friend, Lord Brooke. I understand that the gist of the Government's argument is that disagreeing with the Lords Amendment will have little practical effect; the legal position will remain as it was; probably people are legally entitled to wheel bicycles on footpaths, anyway, and the new Clause is otiose. As this is the position, I would not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28

TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS FOR SPECIAL AREAS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE

Lords Amendment No. 36: In page 29, line 20, at end insert:
( ) Subject to the following provisions of this section, section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, as applied for the purposes set out in subsection (2) above, shall have effect so as to authorise the making of traffic regulation orders as respects Crown roads, and orders (hereafter also referred to as ' traffic regulation orders') may be made under subsection (3) above as respects Crown roads.
( ) The consent of the appropriate Crown authority must be given before a traffic regulation order is made as respects a Crown road.
( ) A traffic regulation order made as respects a Crown road, notwithstanding section 97 of the said Act of 1967, shall not apply to vehicles or persons in the public service of the Crown except so far as is expressly provided in the order, and the inclusion of any such express provision in an order not made by a Minister shall require the approval of the appropriate Minister.
( ) If a traffic regulation order is or is to be made as respects a Crown road, the local authority concerned may, after consultation with the appropriate Crown authority, place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, such traffic signs of any type prescribed, or authorised, under section 54 of the said Act of 1967 as the local authority may consider necessary in connection with the order.
The powers conferred by this subsection shall be exercisable subject to and in conformity with any general directions given under section 55(1) of the said Act of 1967, and any other power conferred by the said section 55 to give directions to a highway authority shall include power to give the like directions to the local authority concerned as respects the Crown road, but after consultation with the appropriate Crown authority.
( ) The appropriate Minister may, after consulting the appropriate Crown authority, give directions to the local authority concerned


with any Crown road requiring the local authority to remove, or cause to be removed, any traffic sign, within the meaning of the said Act of 1967, or any other object or device (whether fixed or portable) for the guidance or direction of persons using roads on or in the vicinity of the road, and section 63 of the said Act of 1967 (power to enter on land) shell apply as if this subsection formed part of section 61 of that Act.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
If it is agreeable to the House and to you, Sir, I suggest that it might be convenient if we were to discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendments:

No. 37: In page 29, line 21, at end insert:
' the appropriate Crown authority ', in relation to any land, has the same meaning as ' the appropriate authority" as defined by section 101(11) of the Act of 1949.

No. 38: In page 29, line 24, at end insert:
 ' Crown road' means a road, other than a highway, to which the public have access by permission granted by the appropriate Crown authority, or otherwise granted by or on behalf of the Crown, and
'local authority concerned', in relation to a Crown road, means the authority having power to make an order as respects that road under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 as extended by this section,

The effect of these Amendments is to enable traffic regulation orders to be made on roads over Crown land in the countryside. This is a matter which has been urged upon us by a number of hon. Members, in particular by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). We have been able to conclude the necessary consultations and obtain the necessary agreements. The Crown Departments concerned and the National Parks Commission are in favour of having these roads brought within the ambit of traffic regulation, as this should simplify the problems of traffic control. That is what these somewhat lengthy Amendments achieve.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the hard

work which, I know, he has done on this matter. I know that the outcome will give great satisfaction particularly in Dartmoor-and other such places. It will be a great help in the future in straightening out the anomalies as between the two authorities which have existed in the past.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 30

EXCHEQUER GRANTS FOR COUNTRYSIDE

Lords Amendment No. 39: In page 31, line 13, at end insert:
and expenditure in or in connection with the acquisition of land for the purposes of the functions conferred by the said section 89(1)".

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to provide that grants may be paid anywhere in the country for the acquisition of land for the purpose of planting trees to improve and preserve the natural beauty of the area. Hitherto, this has been possible in the National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Clause 30(1), head 8 provides for grant for planting in the countryside in general, but the rather restrictive wording of Section 97 of the National Parks Act might have thrown doubt on whether this grant was to be available throughout the country. It is one of the major purposes of the Bill to treat the whole country as one for this purpose. The Amendment removes any doubt.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we might take Lords Amendment No. 40.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New Clause "F"

WARDENS

Lords Amendment No. 41: After Clause 37, in page 36, line 40, at end insert new Clause "F":

5
"F.—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may appoint such number of persons as may appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects any land within the National Park to which section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (Common land) for the time being applies, whether or not within the area of the local planning authority.


10
(2) Before a local planning authority first exercise their powers under subsection (1) above as respects any land, they shall, if practicable, consult the persons entitled to the soil of the land.



(3) The foregoing subsections shall be construed as one with section 92 of the Act of 1949 and shall be subject to subsection (4) of that section (saving for interests of landowners).


15
(4) The purposes for which wardens may be appointed by an authority under the said section 92 (as amended by this Act) as respects any land or waters are—


20
(a) to secure compliance with any byelaws, with the pro visions of the Litter Act 1958 and with any requirements imposed by or under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925,


(b) to advise and assist the public, and


(c) to perform such other duties (if any) in relation to the land or waters as the authority may determine.


25
This subsection shall have effect in substitution for subsection (2) of the said section 92."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take Lords Amendment No. 57, in Schedule 5, page 52, line 29, column 3, at end insert "Section 92(2)".

Mr. Jopling: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we considered at the same time all three of my Amendments to the Lords Amendment, namely—
No. 9, in line 4, atfer 'respects' insert '(a)'.
No. 10, in line 6, at end insert:
(b) any highway within the National Park.
No. 11, in line 6, at end insert:
(b) any open country within the National Park to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access without payment.
I hope that it may be possible to take separate votes on them, if you agree, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may move only one of them. I have not decided whether to let him have three separate votes. He will move one Amendment and speak to the three.

Mr. Jopling: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, as an Amendment to

the Lords Amendment, in line 4, after 'respects', insert '(a)'.
The new Clause coming from another place as Lords Amendment No. 41 changes the warden service in National Parks. First, it extends the area over which wardens may operate by including land subject to Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. Briefly, this consists of urban commons. Also, the new Clause changes the purposes for which wardens may operate by making the first purpose compliance with byelaws and the enforcement of the Litter Act, 1958 and the requirements of the Law of Property Act to which I have referred. These enforcement purposes are now first on the list as compared with the old 1949 Act.
The reference to the advice and assistance part of the purposes of the warden service deletes from the relevant section of the 1949 Act the words
as to any matter for which byelaws can be made".
This means that the advice and assistance part of the warden service purposes is much extended.
These changes are very much welcomed in the National Parks, but, the purposes of the warden service having been


widened, it is important to widen the scope of its activities with reference to the land on which wardens can operate. I do not believe—I think that this view is fairly widely held in the National Parks —that to extend the scope by reference to Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, goes far enough. Certainly, in the Lake District it does not go far enough. There is evidence—I think that the Ministry has received evidence from other National Park Authorities—that the service ought to be further extended. I understand that representations to this effect have been made from the Brecon Beacons, Dartmoor, Exmoor, Snowdonia, North Yorkshire Moors, Yorkshire Dales, and the Peak District National Parks.
The Amendment seeks to extend the scope of the warden service to open country within the national parks to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access without payment. We still have enormous areas in our parks which are private land, but over which the public have access by tradition, where there are no access orders or agreements. They are found to be unnecessary. It is that open country definition in the 1949 Act that is contained in the series of Amendments. Most landowners will welcome this.
I hope that the Minister will not say that there is no statutory right of access and therefore he cannot agree to the Amendments, because he has already allowed this under the control of boating Clause. It is essential to allow byelaw enforcement and particularly enforcement of the Litter Act on wider sections of land than at present. The Litter Act uses the phrase "open country". We have put it into the Amendments and we hope that wardens will be allowed to apply it properly.
Amendment No. 10 also extends the scope of the warden service to highways within national parks, and includes footpaths, bridle paths and other highways. There is a great need for wardens to be able to operate on these minor highways used by visitors. They are the roads to the high lands and mountains where people want to go. They lead through the land where the warden service is most helpful, through the in-byeland as it is known in the North.
It is absolutely essential that the warden service be extended to these two

groups of lands, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given some thought to the matter since I last spoke. There will be only one Division on this group of Amendments.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Clause 92 of the 1949 Act restricts the scope of wardens to land covered by access orders and agreements.
My hon. Friend has spelt out, but perhaps not in the detail with which I intend to spell out, the serious impediments which are put in the way of wardens in attempting to bring about the kind of conduct by the public which we think right and proper in national parks. In the majority of parks there are no wardens, because there are no access agreements or orders. The Pembrokeshire Park Authority, for example, must make do with the subterfuge of appointing a warden to police a car park, as there are no access orders—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendments, which seek to extend the scope of the power of wardens in these two respects. The hon. Gentleman can talk about wardens when we come to the Clause which the Amendments seek to amend.

Mr. Jackson: I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to develop my argument in respect of the Amendments.
Amendment No. 10 refers to a highway and land in national parks. The argument I am trying to develop is that wardens have no powers to police bye-laws in respect of areas in national parks not covered by access agreements or orders. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that the work of the wardens is seriously impeded. Nevertheless, I am very grateful, and I think that I speak for all hon. Members, that we have secured certain concessions. We now have provision for land which belongs to local authorities, land covered by access agreements and orders. We have common land for the first time, and we have the lakes.
10.30 p.m.
I would like to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). It is an anomaly that the byelaws provide such cover for lakes, but


not for public highways in National Parks. I am sure that the infringement of byelaws or the country code is much more likely on the highway than on the lakes. I am pleased that we attempt, in the Lords Amendments, to secure compliance with the provisions of the Litter Act. I may be mistaken in my reading of the Amendments, but as I see it, wardens will only have powers in respect of the Litter Act on access land or areas owned by the local authority. This is an absurdity. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend corercts me, and I take it that wardens will have powers in respect of policing the Litter Act through the National Parks.
I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to a striking omission in the Clause —the fact that there is no reference to the Civic Amenity Act.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Clause, but three Amendments, to which the hon. Member has put his name.

Mr. Jackson: I apologise, and accept that I was out of order on that point.
The powers are unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend has received representations from the National Farmers' Union, and I have sent him a document containing the policy of the Union, as distinct from their branches. It makes a reference to the remoteness from reality of the 1949 Act and the warden system, as it operates. A significant part of it says:
In the first place most of the damage is done, not on dedicated land or on land which could be, but has not been, dedicated for access, but rather on 'in-bye' land, lower down the Valley or in the foothills.
This is just the point of the hon. Member for Westmorland. The policy is not effective where most of the damage is done, because it is not covered by agreement.
The document goes on:
There is no provisions in the Act for a warden service to operate officially elsewhere than on dedicated access land, or for the Second Schedule code to have effect.
It goes on to argue for an extension of the warden system. It says:
We feel that steps must be taken to strengthen the warden system and the powers of planning authorities to operate byelaws governing conduct not only in those few areas where formal dedication agreements have

been made by owners, but also further afield. We realise that this raises legal and technical difficulties but they are not insuperable. Voluntary, part-time wardens should be properly trained … and should have the same powers as those possessed by special constables ".

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the training of wardens on these very narrow Amendments, to which the hon. Gentleman has put his own name.

Mr. Jackson: I apologise. I should have crossed out that section of the quotation. The next section refers to the Amendment. It reads:
The area over which they, and any full-time, paid wardens patrol should be extended at the request of the occupiers of land which might not be formally dedicated, or might not even qualify under the Act for such dedication, but over which de facto public access has long been exercised, and where there is evidence of nuisance or damage.
So I think I can say that this Amendment has the support of the National Farmers' Union. Since the publication of that policy document my hon. Friend has received, I understand, a further letter from the National Farmers' Union strongly supporting the terms of the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
I would, very briefly, draw my hon. Friend's attention to another anomaly. We have had reference to the problems of inby land. There are operating in the Peak District National Park and in other national parks certain byelaws about dogs on leads. They create problems on inby land; they do not create problems on uplands—

Mr. Skeffington: I think my hon. Friend is getting rather wide now, because this inby land, which is not agricultural land, is not subject to the making of access orders in any event.

Mr. Jackson: Nevertheless I think my hon. Friend would agree that it would be proper for wardens to patrol such areas. If the last of these three Amendments to the Lords Amendment were accepted, wardens would be able to patrol such areas and would be in a position, such as they are not now, to restrain people who, while, quite rightly, walking along a footpath or a public right of way, allow their dogs to worry sheep.
Not only, as the hon. Member for Westmorland said, is the Amendment to the Lords Amendment supported by the


National Farmers' Union. It is supported also by all the local planning authorities, and I understand that it has also the support of many parish councils. Certainly this is true in the Peak District. Many of them would like to see their villages and roads patrolled. The wardens are now restricted to such land as is covered by access orders.
There was some argument in another place when Amendments were proposed there similar in terms to these Amendments to the Lords Amendment. I think it right and proper to refer to some of the argument. I think Lord Kennet, when he replied, accepted the need for wider supervision, but argued that it would be improper to extend the scope of the wardens' service at a time when it was not possible to provide adequate coverage. That will be found in the Lords' HANSARD for 13th May, at col. 142. He quoted the figure of £1,200 a year for a warden, and said there would be several thousand miles of public right of way to police, and if we were to police all public rights of way we would obviously put the local planning authorities in an impossible position. I think there is some force in that argument, but I do not think it is a compelling one, in that we are in the Bill giving powers to local authorities to bring about many changes which we know, because of the stringent financial circumstances, will not immediately be introduced; but the Bill will probably remain on the Statute Book for the next decade or so without any amendment.
Nevertheless, one hopes that within the next 10 years—personally, I hope before then—the economic climate will be somewhat improved and that local authorities will be in a very much better position to make provision for wardens.
I have perhaps said too much already in supporting the Amendment to the Lords Amendment, but I just want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Clause dealing with policing and traffic regulations. I would ask him in all seriousness how he intends these should be policed. Obviously, they will not be policed to any extent by full-time policemen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that traffic regulations come into this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Jackson: I am referring to Amendment No. 10, which states that wardens shall have power to police and to enforce byelaws on
any highway within the National Park.
I think, therefore, that my comment is relevant. It is simply that I feel that the Clause, which deals with traffic regulations, will be a dead letter unless there is a body of full-time and voluntary wardens to police and enforce those parts of the regulations.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel that a case has been made out for an extension of the provisions. I think that we have argued very convincingly that there are anomalies, so I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: I am glad that a general welcome has been given to the new Clause, which honours the undertakings given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that we would consider whether we could not only redefine the duties of wardens so that there was no doubt about what they could legitimately do, but also to extend the areas in which they operated. The fact that common land, to use a shorthand expression, can be brought in, as well as lands which are within the control of the park authorities and for which there are access agreements, is an extension of the operations of wardens—I will say something about powers later. That is generally welcomed and I hope that the House will approve of that in due course.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) wanted further powers, and they have made further suggestions about areas where the wardens might operate. First, it is suggested that wardens should operate on
any highway within the National Park.
I have no doubt that they have in mind footpaths and bridleways mainly, but the Amendment to the Lords Amendment states "any highway". There may be some cases where a warden's service might be thought to be profitable on the highway.
This is a wide undertaking. I do not know how many hundreds or thousands of miles of road this would cover,


but it would be a great deal. The House should realise that under the provisions of the Bill we are making grant aid available for the employment of wardens. I am not suggesting that the authorities will immediately say, if the new Clause is accepted, "We must have hundreds of wardens to police the new territory which has been provided for in the Act." But I suggest that in anything which the House does relating to a service which is to be grant aided, we must have regard to where the service will operate.
An even stronger point than that is that there is nothing to prevent the wardens now being on the highway. They have as much right to be on the highway as anybody. By saying that they can be on the highway does not give them any additional powers. The powers are defined in the new Clause. They can exercise those powers if they happen to be on the highway or anywhere else. Amendment No. 10 to the Lords Amendment would give no extra power of any practical form, so I could not advise the House to accept it.
Amendment No. 11 to the Lords Amendment provides for the service to operate in
any open country within the National Park to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access without payment.
I do not want to go in detail over the argument in another place. The fact is that unless we can get an access agreement whereby we can incorporate the appropriate conditions under which a warden can operate, we might find ourselves in considerable difficulty.
The hon. Member for Westmorland has a lot of land within his constituency to which the common land definition will apply. To that extent his problem is eased. The hon. Gentleman says that in his area the land owners do not take energetic steps to keep people off. If there is no legal right or obligation, we could be faced with the situation of a warden operating on private land and being told to get off.
10.45 p.m.
It would be impossible to base a grant-aided service on so precarious a basis as that. If there is a service of this kind, for reasons which I have given elsewhere we ought to make certain that the war-

dens can operate with security and with the agreement of the land owner.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that in the vast majority of cases farmers will be happy to give this consent?

Mr. Skeffington: I find it difficult to generalise. I should be delighted if farmers were happy to give this consent, but there are farmers and farmers, and perhaps traditions and attitudes vary in different parts of the country. If a farmer or a land owner wants a warden service to operate, there are two things that can be done. First, he can make an access agreement. This will have all kinds of advantages for him and for those who operate the service. Secondly, if he does not want to make an access agreement, but wants to allow wardens to operate on his territory, there is nothing to prevent that being done with the agreement of the authority providing the warden service.
One cannot provide a warden service on the precarious basis that today a warden can operate, but tomorrow the farmer says, "I shall have no more of this". The only sure way of doing this —and this is particularly true in relation to a grant-aided service—is to have a proper agreement under which the warden's duties are known and they can be carried out with full legal rights, which are obtained by settling the question of access.
I am certain that the work which wardens can do in advising people and helping them in various ways is of great benefit, but I hope that the House will not over-estimate their powers and think that they are policemen, because they are not. They have no right to arrest anybody, and I am sure that the House would be very upset if they had that power. They have no right to take the name and address of an individual. They can ask for those details, but no one need give them. If someone committed a traffic offence the warden could take the number of the car and report it to the police authorities, but the House has always felt that if a matter may result in a legal prosecution the police should deal with it because they receive the necessary training for such eventualities.
For those reasons I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.
We have gone a long way in providing a service in categories of land which were previously excluded, and this has been generally welcomed. There is no advantage in having this provision in respect of highways. As regards private land, I hope that the land owners who want the service of wardens will enter into access agreements, or make ad hoc arrangements with the local authority. The obligation on both sides will then be far less onerous. To say that the public have a right to go on to certain land because the farmer has not prohibited their entry would open the possibilities far too wide, and I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Channon: I think that at this late hour the House wants to come to a decision on this matter. We have had a long debate, and all I can say is that we are disappointed with the hon.

Gentleman's answers to the questions asked by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson). I think that the best course is to divide the House to test the feelings of hon. Members on this issue.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I hope very much that when my hon. Friend makes the regulations and when he has discussions with the national park authorities and others he will pay attention to the importance of this matter and will encourage authorities, in suitable cases, to make ad hoc arrangements which he has said might be possible. This is an important aspect of voluntary effort, and I want to see it extended as much as possible.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 109.

Division No. 236.]
AYES
[10.49 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Brewis, John
Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Royle, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c't1e-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lane, David
Silvester, Frederick


Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (Wwick &amp; L'mington)


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Foster, Sir John 
Maxwell-Hyelop, R.. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Edward M. (C'gow, Cathcart)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Hatl, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley
Wilton, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Hill, J. E. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES;


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian
Mr. Hector Monro and




Mr. Timothy Kitson.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunwoody, Mre. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hazell, Bert


Alldritt, Walter
Eadie, Alex
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John
Horner, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, loan L. (Bimt'h'm, Yardley)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Blackburn, F.
Faulds, Andrew
Hoy, James


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ford, Ben
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Buchan, Norman
Galpern, Sir Myer
Judd, Frank


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Carmlchael, Neil
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Coe, Denis
Gregory, Arnold
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lomas, Kenneth


Dell, Edmund
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Dickens, James
Hannan, William
Lubbook, Eric


Dobson, Ray
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Doig, Peter
Haseldine, Norman
McCann, John




MacDermot, Niall
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Varley, Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Manuel, Archie
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mendelson, J. J.
Roebuck, Roy
Wallace, George


Millan, Bruce
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitaker, Ben


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilkins, W. A.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Murray, Albert
Slater, Joseph
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Newens, Stan
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Orme, Stanley
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)



Oswald, Thomas
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pavitt, Laurence
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. Neil McBride.


Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39

POWER TO AMEND LOCAL ACTS CONCERNING LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment No. 42: In page 37, line 32, at end insert:
( ) shall not repeal or amend any enactment so far as it relates to the water undertaking of a local authority ".

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, which has been fully discussed earlier, is put down in order to remove an anomaly. It is done with the assent of the British Waterworks Association, and I hope that the House will agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44

INTERPRETATION

Lords Amendment No. 43: In page 40, line 26, at end insert:
'boat' includes any hover vehicle or craft being a vehicle or craft designed to be supported on a cushion of air and which is used on or over water;

Mrs. White: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be thought that the byelaws referred to in the Amendment, as they concern traffic of any description, would include hovercraft, but as there are references to boats elsewhere in the Bill it seemed desirable to include this definition of hovercraft.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 45: In page 41, line 15, at end insert:
except that Parts III and IV of Schedule 3 shall come into force on such day as the Minister may by order, made by statutory instrument, appoint and such an order shall not be effective until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment would delay the operation of the procedure set out in Parts III and IV of Schedule 3 for the special review of definitive maps, which includes proposals for the reclassification of roads used as public paths. Interests in connection with motoring alleged that they had not been sufficiently consulted. Further meetings have now taken place and I gather that, provided reference is made in a circular to clarify the points which were troubling them at a meeting on 7th June, there will be peace and quiet.

Mr. Channon: Since those further meetings have taken place, we do not object to the Government's Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 8

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

Lords Amendment No. 49: In page 46, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert:
1. Section 3(1) shall have effect with the substitution for references to the Minister of references to the acquiring authority.

2. In the case of an order under section 3(1) extinguishing a right of way (but not an order reviving a right of way)—


(a) the order shall not take effect unless confirmed by the Minister, as defined in this Act, or unless confirmed, as an unopposed order, by the acquiring authority,
(b) the Minister shall not confirm the order unless satisfied as to the matters set out in section 3(1),
(c) the time specified in the order as the time from which the right of way is extinguished shall not be earlier than confirmation of the order,
(d) Schedule 7 to the Highways Act 1959, as amended below, shall have effect as to the making, confirmation, validity and date of operation of the order,

but paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above shall not apply where the acquiring authority is the Minister.

(3) These amendments of section 3 of the Act of 1946 shall not affect that section as applied by section 15 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (suspension of rights of way).

(4) These amendments of the said section 3 shall not apply in relation to an order if made before the date of the coming into force of this Act, or if a notice relating to the order was published pursuant to subsection (2) of the said section 3 before that date."

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 50 and 56.

Mr. Skeffington: The Amendments remove the need for the local authorities and other acquiring authorities to submit certain unopposed public paths orders to the Minister for making or confirmation. This is in general line with the procedure in other Measures, like the Town and Country Planning Act, and will mean fewer matters coming to Whitehall.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 51: In page 48, line 46, leave out from "shall" to end of line 42 and insert"cause a local enquiry to be held ".

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 52.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we could also discuss Lords Amendment No. 54 and the Amendment to it, Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Channon: On a point of order. Will we be able to have, if necessary, a separate Division on Amendment No. 13?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, that will be possible.

Mr. Skeffington: The Amendments give effect to an undertaking which the Government gave, in another place, over the shortened review procedure to ensure that, in a dispute about a right of way, each side would have the same treatment. As a result of the Amendments, the Minister will cause a local inquiry to be held if objections are made to alterations affected by or anything omitted from the draft revision map and not withdrawn. In this way, any person interested will be able to make representations to an inspector about the rights of way in dispute at an inquiry which will be advertised in the normal way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the right course would be to dispose of Amendment No. 54 and the Amendment to it, before putting the Question on Amendment No. 51.

Mr. Channon: At what stage would we then decide on those two, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Skeffington: On a point of order. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are separate. If we disposed of those we could then go on to Amendment No. 54 and the consequent Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 53: In page 49, line 7, leave out paragraph 5.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and No. 54 give effect to the Gosling Committee's recommendation that the definition "roads used as public paths" in the 1949 Act should be abandoned and that roads should be surveyed by the responsible authorities, who should decide in each


case whether the road should be designated as an unclassified road, bridleway or footpath. Naturally, the normal procedures will be available—advertisement, time for objection, inquiry, and so forth. This completes the undertakings which the Government gave at an earlier stage in this respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 54: In page 49, line 37, at end insert:

Orders of the Day — PART III

ROADS USED AS PUBLIC PATHS

The special review

8. In this Part of this Schedule the 'special review' carried out by any authority means the first review begun by that authority after the coming into force of this Act.

9.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the draft revision in the special review shall be published not later than three years after the date of the coming into force of this Act.

(2) If on the said date the authority have not completed a survey or revision begun earlier—


(a) the draft revision in the special review shall be published not later than three years after the date of the coming into force of this Act, or one year after notice is published of the completion of the survey or earlier review, whichever is the later,
(b) the special review (hereafter in this Schedule called a 'limited special review') shall be confined to a review of roads used as public paths in accordance with this Part of this Schedule:

Provided that if on a review begun before the date of the coming into force of this Act no revised map and statement has been published in draft before that date, the review shall be abandoned, and shall be begun again under Part II of this Schedule as the special review.

(3) If it appears to the Minister that any stage of a special review has been or is likely to be unduly delayed, he may give to the authority such directions as appear to the Minister appropriate for expediting the review, and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the directions.

Reclassification of roads used as public paths

10.—(1) In the special review the draft revision, and the definitive map and statement, shall show every road used as a public path by one of the three following descriptions—


(a) a ' byway open to all traffic',
(b) a ' bridleway ',
(c) a ' footpath ',

and shall not employ the expression ' road used as a public path' to describe any way.

(2) As from the date of publication of the definitive map and statement in the special review—



(a) each way shown in the map in pursuance of this paragraph by any of the three descriptions shall be a highway maintainable at the public expense,
(b) subject to paragraph (c) below, anyentry in the map describing a way as a byway open to all traffic' shall be conclusive evidence of the existence on the date of publication of a public right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic,
(c) section 32(4)(c) of the Act of 1949 (position and width, and limitations or conditions affecting the public right of way, as shown in the statement) shall apply to any byway so shown as it applies to a footpath or bridleway.

(3) In this paragraph 'road used as a public path' means—


(a) a way which is shown as a ' road used as a public path' in the last definitive map and statement, or
(b) a way which is shown as a 'bridleway' or as a 'footpath' in the last definitive map and statement, and which in the opinion of the authority ought to have been there shown as a road used as a public path, or
(c) where the special review is not a limited special review, a way which in the opinion of the authority would, but for the provisions of this Part of this Schedule, have fallen to be shown, in the definitive map and statement resulting from the special review, as a road used as a public path.

(4) In subsection (2)(a) and in subsection (5) of section 51 of the Act of 1949 (long distance routes) references to roads used as public paths shall include references to any way shown on a definitive map and statement as a ' byway open to all traffic '.

(5) Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the operation of road traffic orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, or oblige a highway authority to provide, on a way shown on a definitive map as a ' byway open to all traffic', a metalled carriage-way, or a carriageway which is by any other means provided with a surface suitable for the passage of vehicles.

Test for reclassification

11. The considerations to be taken into account in deciding in which class a road used as a public path is to be put shall be—


(a) whether any vehicular right of way has been shown to exist,
(b) whether the way is suitable for vehicular traffic having regard to the position and width of the existing right of way, the condition and state of repair of the way, and the nature of the soil,
(c) where the way has been used by vehicular traffic, whether the extinguishment of vehicular rights of way would cause any undue hardship.

Procedure on special review

12.—(1) Part II of this Schedule shall apply to a special review subject as follows.

(2) The published notices shall state that the review reclassifies roads used as public paths.

(3) The representations or objections referred to in paragraph 4 in Part II shall include representations or objections with respect to the reclassification of any road used as a public path.

(4) The time, as stated in the published notice of the draft revision, within which any representation or objection (of any description) may be made to the draft revision shall not be less than four months.

Survey begun after commencement of Act

13.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, paragraphs 10 and 11 above shall apply to an initial survey begun after the coming into force of this Act as if it were the first review so begun.

(2) In paragraph 10(1), as applied to the survey, for references to the draft revision and the definitive map and statement there shall be substituted references to the map and statement in draft, provisional and definitive form, and in paragraphs 10 and 11, as applied to the survey, ' road used as a public path ' shall mean a way which in the opinion of the authority would, but for the provisions of this Part of this Schedule, have fallen to be shown, in the definitive map and statement resulting from the survey, as a road used as a public path.

Interpretation and construction

14.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule references to a definitive map and statement include references to a revised map and statement prepared in definitive form.

(2) This Part, and Part IV, of this Schedule shall be construed as one with Part IV of the Act of 1949.

Orders of the Day — PART IV

TIMING OF REVIEWS

15.—(1) The period covered by a review, that is to say the period between the two dates specified in section 33(1) of the Act of 1949, shall not exceed five years:

Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not affect the validity of any review or of any document prepared or thing done in consequence of a review.

(2) The interval between the end of the period covered by a review and the publication of the draft revision shall be—


(a) in the case of the special review, not more than two years, and
(b) in the case of any subsequent review, not more than six months.

(3) In the case of a limited special review—


(a) sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall not apply, and
(b) the period covered by the next subsequent review shall begin with the relevant date for the original survey, or the date of review of the last review before the special review, whichever is the later.

(4) Section 33(3) of the Act of 1949 (which is superseded by sub-paragraph (1) above) shall not apply to a review begun after the coming into force of this Act."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after subsection 10(5) insert:
(6) The reclassification of a road used as a public path under this Schedule shall not restrict the use of the right of way by any vehicle servicing agricultural land or normally used for agricultural or horticultural operations.
The provision in Lords Amendment No. 54 is that footpaths shall in future be reclassified to be either always open to all traffic or as bridleways or footpaths. Many roads used on farms will have to be reclassified and fall into one of these three classifications. Certain difficulties arise under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. First, Section 18 provides that it is an offence for persons without lawful authority to drive a motor vehicle on any road being a footpath or bridle way. Secondly, tractors or other motorised farm vehicles have to comply with certain traffic regulations, not least of which is third party insurance, if a vehicle is used on a public highway.
With these two requirements, it is by no means clear as to what will happen if a farm road is reclassified into one of these new classifications. On many farms are tracks used by farm vehicles in going about the farm and which may well now have to fall into one of these new categories. Not only are these tracks essential for farm business. There are also farms where there are access roads which go over adjacent land. Where that is the case, the same difficulty may arise.
If one happens to have land covered by a private easement, under which one has the farm road going over someone else's farm, the arrangement under ordinary law of private easement, where the dominant and servient tenants enable these matters to be carried out quite happily, will no longer apply if these tracks turn into public rights of way. In these circumstances, there is great anxiety among the farming community that these new provisions will not meet their requirements. Paragraph 68 of the Gosling Report said many of these roads used as public paths
… are still used to a considerable extent for agricultural purposes and it has been foremost in our minds in considering the future of these roads that there continued used by farmers for their vehicles and livestock should not be questioned whether or not their lands is adjacent to the path.


In these circumstances, our Amendment to the Amendment is essential and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Mr. Skeffington: I hope to be able to convince the hon. Gentleman that his fears are quite unfounded. All that this part of the Bill does is to ensure that after a certain procedure has been observed certain public rights will be maintained. They will be categorised according to the nature of the paths after the procedure of designation by the local authority, the lodging of objections, the inquiry, and so on. Nothing in this Clause impinges at all on the ownership of the soil over which the path runs. If a farmer or owner has had previous rights, he not only continues to have them for himself but he can give them to others for bringing vehicles over the land. If he decides for the purpose of his husbandry to use the way, it can be done.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point, as it gives me an opportunity to reassure him, but the Amendment is redundant.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clear up the two points I made about the Road Traffic Act, because in spite of what he has just said they seem to present difficulties.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman misconceives the position. There is nothing in the Road Traffic Act, unless there is an agreement that completely closes the path, which overrides the rights of the owner in the soil. It is for that reason that one has had all the complications in relation to footpaths. There are many cases now where there has been redesignation. I can think of one path going right through an aircraft factory. The public in this case have been excluded, but the original owners of the soil still have the right to go through, and to give permission to anyone else to do so.

Sir Richard Glyn: There may be a right, but the trouble is that at present a farmer can go on a farm road with a tractor without the need for insurance or licence. Will that continue to be the case when these are designated highways?

Mr. Skeffington: I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject of licensing. My information is that it is not so, but I will look into it.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

LOCAL AUTHORITY COMMITTEES AND JOINT BOARDS

Lords Amendment No. 55: In page 51, line 38, at end insert:
( ) A least one of the members of a joint board or joint advisory committee or a planning committee or sub-committee of a planning committee referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, who is appointed by each county council, shall be a county district councillor from a county district wholly or partially included in a National Park.

Read a Second time.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of this Amendment would be to require representation by county district councils, one representative for each constituent council, on National Park planning committees, sub-committees, joint boards or joint advisory committees. I believe that this Amendment was sponsored by the Rural and Urban District Councils' Associations and the A.M.C. I know that this is a matter about which the rural district councils have felt strongly for a long time, and I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation from their association just before the presentation of the Bill, and heard their views.
The composition of national park planning authorities provides that not less than one-third of the members shall be appointed by the local planning authority or authorities on the nomination of the Minister, the remaining two-thirds being appointed by the planning authority. The reason for this division was that it was intended to get a proper balance between the representation of the interests of preservation, enhancement and development of the area as a national recreational amenity, and the maintenance of a reasonable standard of living, commercial opportunity and tolerable levels of rate-borne expenditure for the local people.
11.15 p.m.
We accept that local interests should be represented on these boards, but we do not think the right way to achieve that is by a provision of this kind. Planning authorities may appoint a city councillor who may be living in a national park and be fully aware of and able to represent local interests. Some county councillors are also rural district councillors. Some flexibility needs to be preserved.
I did, however, tell the deputation which came to see me—and I had it confirmed later by letter—that when this Bill passes into law and we issue circulars to local authorities about its implementation, we would commend the practice of including district council representatives among the membership. That practice has been adopted by Dartmoor National Park and it is one of which we would generally approve, but, for the reasons I have given, we do not think it one which we should try to spell out rigidly in the way it would be by this

Amendment. For that reason I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Mr. Channon: This matter was fully debated in another place when much the same arguments were put by the Government. It is very sad that the Government should decide to disagree with the Lords about this important matter which has been a matter of controversy for about 19 years. I thought, and I believe my noble Friends in another place thought, that a satisfactory agreement had been reached. The hand of the Minister would be strengthened if this Amendment were made. I did not find the argument of the Minister of State convincing. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will support their Lordships and not accept the Motion.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 72.

Division No. 237.]
AYES
[11.19 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Alldritt, Walter
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hoy, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Booth, Albert
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roebuck, Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Judd, Frank
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Buchan, Norman
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Carmichael, Neil
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius


Coe, Denis
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skeffington, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McGuire, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Manuel, Archie
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Milns, Edward (Blyth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ford, Ben
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Murray, Albert
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan



Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Haseldine, Norman
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Hazell, Bert
Pavitt, Laurence





NOES


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Channon, H. P. G.
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clark, Henry
Errington, Sir Eric


Brewis, John
Costain, A. P.
Eyre, Reginald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles




Foster, Sir John
Lane, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Francis


Glyn, Sir Richard
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony


Grant-Ferris, R.
Lubbock, Eric
Scott, Nicholas


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maude, Angus
Sharples, Richard


Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Silvester, Frederick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hordern, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Kitson, Timothy
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Anthony Grant and




Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Title

Lords Amendment No. 59: In line 8, at end insert"and other public paths."

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Earlier this evening I referred to certain categories of unopposed Orders which, under the Bill, it will be competent for the local authorities to decide without coming to Whitehall. Certain consequential Amendments must be made, because there is one definition of path—
a public right of way not being a right enjoyable by vehicular traffic"—

which is not clearly within the Long Title. The Amendment corrects that omission.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Channon, Mr. David Gibson-Watt, Mr. Niall MacDermot, Mr. Arthur Skeffington, and Mrs. Eirene White; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

To withdraw immediately.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.